The latest Russian deterrent weapons that will change the balance of power

[500]

I didn't ever change the topic and you shooting diarrhea out of your mouth is a factual statement.
You know what else is factual? Me providing sources for every claim i make. You know what isn't? You providing nothing.

Your constant personal attacks show only lack of arguments and frustration.

Liquid engines are superior to solid. They are more efficient, more powerful and can be regulated where as solid fuel can't, once solid fuel is ignited it can't be shut off or regulated. A solid fuel engine is identical to a toy firework.


Yes they are more expensive and complicated but so is a Ferrari compared to a Ford. The Saramat is the Ferrari of rockets while everything else is a budget car.


Solid fuel in large rockets is literally the same as this:

No, in military rockets solid is much better. UMDH is very old and simple technology. All the world is moving from it to solid, no one goes back. Even Russia itself moved from UMDH to solid.

That cruise missile doesn't have a range of 4000km. As I said most cruise missiles have a range of just a few hundred km. With such a long range cruise missile expensive delivery platforms such as submarines and aircraft are not needed, and they are more survivable due to course correction and the ability the fly around air defenses.

That missile has "more than 3700 km" range. Thats still much more than enough to fly from London to Moscow + make several circles around Moscow. And this missile weights only 1.7 tons. If u make 5 ton missile it will fly 10,000 km with ease.

You are clululess. In one year the average US submarine used about 15lbs of nuclear fuel.


http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/99-01/maerli.pdf

A cruise missile will need just a few drops nuclear fuel to stay airborne for several days. The nuclear fuel will only need to generate heat for the ramjet.

If you think that few drops are enough to warm a ramjet then nuclear bombs simply could not exist. They would all burn away in stores. In order to create strong heat that warms up air to thousands grad u need weight close to critical mass - thats 15 kgs for uranium 235.

And even small amount of such uranium is enough to pollute large areas.

Wow, now diesel submarines don't have pumps and turbines?

LOL u know absolutely nothing. When submerged diesel submarine uses electric motors. Thats all that makes noise. Thats why even small diesel submarine can be very very quiet.

Modern nuclear submarines are large because they carry ICBMs

Here modern SSN displacement:

Virginia - 7900 t
Astute - 7400 t
Yasen - 8600 t

Note these are SSN without ICBM missiles.

For comparison modern SSK:

212 - 1,524 t
Kilo - 2,300 t
Gotland - 1,494 t

https://sputniknews.com/tags/product_Kronstadt_submarine/


The Russian-designed air-independent power plant (AIP) differs from its foreign analogues in that it obtains hydrogen within itself by reforming the onboard diesel fuel.

Even ur propaganda channel says its not ready yet.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/germany-sells-delivers-two-more-dolphin-subs-to-israel/15515/amp

From ur own link:

In November 2005, reports surfaced that that Germany would sell Israel 2 AIP-equipped SSK Dolphin Class submarines. In 2006, the deal was finalized at a total of $1.27 billion, with the German government picking up 1/3 of the cost.

1270 mln for 2 submarines = 635 mln - 1/3 = 423 mln $ per sub payed by Israel.

That video shows CGI animation, talking so much trash about other me using CGI and then posts a video with......CGI. Most defense firms only show vague CGI footage due to the classified nature of their products

It shows actual maneuvering in space.

 

[ptldM3]

No, in military rockets solid is much better. UMDH is very old and simple technology.

UMDH is simple? Solid fuel better? A UMDH is a very complex engine that is a multi chamberd, staged combustion engine. A solid fuel is nothing more then literally a solid fuel.


Solid fuel is what fireworks are made of, they are primitive. They are less efficient, less powerful and can't be regulated or shut off, they are inferior in every single way. They are cheaper but you get what you pay for, in this case a simple cylinder with fuel.


Let's compare how "simple" liquid rockets are to solid fuel:


Solid:

Liquid:

Again, can you guess why space engines use liquid fuel and how they are superior in thrust? Any guesses?

All the world is moving from it to solid, no one goes back. Even Russia itself moved from UMDH to solid.

Name one reason besides price that a solid fuel rocket is better. In terms of technical relevance, how does a simple solid fuel rocket, which is inferior in every quantifiable way better?

That missile has "more than 3700 km" range. Thats still much more than enough to fly from London to Moscow + make several circles around Moscow. And this missile weights only 1.7 tons. If u make 5 ton missile it will fly 10,000 km with ease.

I'm not going to repeat myself again, the vast majority of cruise missiles have only a several hundred km range, I listed many including Israeli ones. That 3700 km cruise missile you keep talking about, what if that cruise missile wants to hit a target at over 3700km, And there goes your logic....clearly it won't be able to, thus comes its limitation.

Some advantages of a nuclear powered cruise missile:


1) Range allows it to hit any target around the world without the need to use expensive platforms such as submarines and aircraft to get into striking distance.


2) Missile can perform course corrections to have a lower probability of being intercepted.

3) Missile has range to take longer and less monitored routes in order to avoud being detected.

If you think that few drops are enough to warm a ramjet then nuclear bombs simply could not exist. They would all burn away in stores. In order to create strong heat that warms up air to thousands grad u need weight close to critical mass - thats 15 kgs for uranium 235.

And even small amount of such uranium is enough to pollute large areas.

Critical mass is dependent on enrichment levels, dencity, nuclide, temperate and shape. You just simply googled 235U and came up with 15kgs which is misleading.

In regards to the cruise missile, we don't know what type nuclide is used or it's density, we don't know anything about the engine, how it's built or even how it exactly generates propulsion. You are again Pretending you are some kind of spy or physicist that works on the program.

LOL u know absolutely nothing. When submerged diesel submarine uses electric motors. Thats all that makes noise. Thats why even small diesel submarine can be very very quiet.

A diesel is an oxymoron, it has to use its diesel to to surface or use a snorkel close to the surface in order to charge its batteries. The element of surprise is gone at that point and it's endurance handicap is more of a liability.



As I said and backed with a source, a nuclear submarine can easily be quieter then a diesel and it does not require to surface in order to charge batteries. It has unlimited endurance.

Here modern SSN displacement:

Virginia - 7900 t
Astute - 7400 t
Yasen - 8600 t

Note these are SSN without ICBM missiles.

For comparison modern SSK:

212 - 1,524 t
Kilo - 2,300 t
Gotland - 1,494 t

Submarines such as the Yasen carrying to 40 cruise missiles that are over 20 feet in length and has a crew of 64 men, some of those submarines also carry midget subs.

The Gutland has nothing more then torpedos and mines, it also has a crew of as little as 24 men. You clearly are either confused or trolling, nuclear submarines are designed to carry ICBMs, cruise missiles, anti ship missiles, torpedos and midget submarines, as a result they have larger crews, clearly they will need to be larger then an diesel submarine to accommodate for the extra firepower, crews and food for the crews.

Even ur propaganda channel says its not ready yet.

It's under construction and it doesn't change the fact that Russia has an AIP submarine. Israel is incapable of producing that type of technology so it resorts to getting handouts or buying cheap diesels from Germany.

From ur own link:

In November 2005, reports surfaced that that Germany would sell Israel 2 AIP-equipped SSK Dolphin Class submarines. In 2006, the deal was finalized at a total of $1.27 billion, with the German government picking up 1/3 of the cost.

1270 mln for 2 submarines = 635 mln - 1/3 = 423 mln $ per sub payed by Israel.

My link also said that Israel got several submarines for free from Germany. That part you denied but it is clearly a fact.

It shows actual maneuvering in space.

It shows an animation and separation in space lol

Russia obviously can not show how hypersonic vehicle evade enemy missiles so it presented an animation, even if they could show it they wouldn't due to the classified nature of the program. All defense contractors such as Lockheed show similar animations but you never question them, so it's clear that you only do so with Russia because of your deep hatred and bias. Basically you try to discredit everything Russia does.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Russia sending a big message to Ukraine, Japan, America. Try to take Russia land, and there will be hell to pay.

 

[T-Rex]

Guys don’t waste your time for a dumbass Netanyahu hasbara troll.

Just amazing!

 

[500]

UMDH is simple? Solid fuel better? A UMDH is a very complex engine that is a multi chamberd, staged combustion engine. A solid fuel is nothing more then literally a solid fuel.


Solid fuel is what fireworks are made of, they are primitive. They are less efficient, less powerful and can't be regulated or shut off, they are inferior in every single way. They are cheaper but you get what you pay for, in this case a simple cylinder with fuel.


Let's compare how "simple" liquid rockets are to solid fuel:


Solid:

View attachment 457407


Liquid:

View attachment 457408

Again, can you guess why space engines use liquid fuel and how they are superior in thrust? Any guesses?

If I show u a powerful steam machine scheme it will be also complicated, bt its 19th century technology. UMDH is 60 years old technology. Solid looks simple, but requers very advanced chemical industry. Thats why UDMH ICBM were before solid. All the world including Russia moves from UDMH to solid, no one moves back. Hell, even Iran is now moving from liquid Shahab to solid Sejil.

Name one reason besides price that a solid fuel rocket is better. In terms of technical relevance, how does a simple solid fuel rocket, which is inferior in every quantifiable way better?

Solid is much much simplier to maintain and fire. What is also important is hat solid rockets have much faster climbrate.

I'm not going to repeat myself again, the vast majority of cruise missiles have only a several hundred km range, I listed many including Israeli ones. That 3700 km cruise missile you keep talking about, what if that cruise missile wants to hit a target at over 3700km, And there goes your logic....clearly it won't be able to, thus comes its limitation.

Russian X-101 has even bigger rage than ACM - 5500 km and weights 2.3 tons. For modern turbofan missile is not a big problem to obtain such range, simply its not really needed in 99% of cases. With 5 ton missile u can easily achieve 10,000 km range too.

Critical mass is dependent on enrichment levels, dencity, nuclide, temperate and shape. You just simply googled 235U and came up with 15kgs which is misleading.

In regards to the cruise missile, we don't know what type nuclide is used or it's density, we don't know anything about the engine, how it's built or even how it exactly generates propulsion. You are again Pretending you are some kind of spy or physicist that works on the program.

I just studied physics in contrast to u. Your idea that few drops are enough to fuel a ramjet show that u know nothing about physics. There is no need to be a genius to understand basic principles of such missile. Here real example of nuclear ramjet missile. US SLAM. It contained 60 kg of uranium:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/slam.htm

So my estimate actually was super modest. Such missile will pollute everything not only in place of crush, but also all over the way.

A diesel is an oxymoron, it has to use its diesel to to surface or use a snorkel close to the surface in order to charge its batteries. The element of surprise is gone at that point and it's endurance handicap is more of a liability.

Modern SSK can swim underwater for days without recharging and AIP for weeks.

As I said and backed with a source, a nuclear submarine can easily be quieter then a diesel and it does not require to surface in order to charge batteries. It has unlimited endurance.

LOL, so brought Ohio as example of small quiet nuclear submarine??? LOL. Even if u cut out IRBM section its still huge monster.

Submarines such as the Yasen carrying to 40 cruise missiles that are over 20 feet in length and has a crew of 64 men, some of those submarines also carry midget subs.

The Gutland has nothing more then torpedos and mines, it also has a crew of as little as 24 men. You clearly are either confused or trolling, nuclear submarines are designed to carry ICBMs, cruise missiles, anti ship missiles, torpedos and midget submarines, as a result they have larger crews, clearly they will need to be larger then an diesel submarine to accommodate for the extra firepower, crews and food for the crews.

Diesel subs can carry cruise missiles as well. For example Russian Kilo can carry them. Cruise missile takes about same space as regular torpedo. Stop making excuses for ur failure.

It's under construction and it doesn't change the fact that Russia has an AIP submarine. Israel is incapable of producing that type of technology so it resorts to getting handouts or buying cheap diesels from Germany.

No Russia does not have any. Even ur propaganda link confirms that.

My link also said that Israel got several submarines for free from Germany. That part you denied but it is clearly a fact.

These were not AIP subs and since then Israel payed billions. Often dealers give u first sample for free.

It shows an animation and separation in space lol

It shows real footage from space too. In putin cartoon it was all animation.

Russia sending a big message to Ukraine, Japan, America. Try to take Russia land, and there will be hell to pay.

Its solely for internal usage. No one is impressed with silly cartoons and 1950-es technologies.

 

[ptldM3]

If I show u a powerful steam machine scheme it will be also complicated, bt its 19th century technology. UMDH is 60 years old technology. Solid looks simple, but requers very advanced chemical industry.

Solid rockets have been around for over 900 years Again they are less efficient and less powerful, it's comical that you think they are better.




http://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/who-built-first-rocket

The first rocket was invented around 1100 AD in China. These rockets used solid propellants and were mainly used as weapons and fireworks. It was not until the 1920s that rocket societies emerged, and by the 1930s and 1940s professional rocket engineering took off.Feb 11, 2012

Thats why UDMH ICBM were before solid. All the world including Russia moves from UDMH to solid, no one moves back. Hell, even Iran is now moving from liquid Shahab to solid Sejil.

Yea, solid fuel is so great....that is why no one uses it for space launches besides Israel and that's because Israel can't make a decent rocket engine. Falcon, proton, Long, etc all use liquid UDMH, the only time solid is used is for some boosters which are cheap and disposable anyways.

Russian X-101 has even bigger rage than ACM - 5500 km and weights 2.3 tons. For modern turbofan missile is not a big problem to obtain such range, simply its not really needed in 99% of cases. With 5 ton missile u can easily achieve 10,000 km range too.

I am well aware Russian cruise missiles have far greater range then any competitors. That still does not change the fact that most cruise missile around the world are under 500km in range and again longer range is simply more survivable due to the fact that course corrections and safer, longer routes can be flown.

I just studied physics in contrast to u. Your idea that few drops are enough to fuel a ramjet show that u know nothing about physics. There is no need to be a genius to understand basic principles of such missile. Here real example of nuclear ramjet missile. US SLAM. It contained 60 kg of uranium:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/slam.htm

That thing was designed in the 1950s, never flew and was cancelled. It was hardly a "cruise missile", more like a jumbo jet.



Here is the engine from that "cruise missile":

I'm sorry but since then many breakthroughs have happened in nuclear physics, ramjet, computer, and cruise missile technology. The US was flying around in Sabres and F-104 at the time and now uses F-22s and F-35s, that is an idea of how much technology has progressed but you're desperately trying to prove a point by pointing 1950s technology without conceding the technological leap that occurred since.

Modern SSK can swim underwater for days without recharging and AIP for weeks.

And nuclear submarines can operate submerged as long as the crew has food and is breathing.

LOL, so brought Ohio as example of small quiet nuclear submarine??? LOL. Even if u cut out IRBM section its still huge monster.

Ohio class is 560 feet with the missile silos taking up over 1/3 the length, this doesn't take into account all the extra crews and electronics needed for the Trident missiles.

Without the missile silos the submarine would be 186 feet. In reality it would be even shorter because you wouldn't need as much crew members, living spaces, food, etc.

The Chinese Type 032 is over 300 feet in length and it is diesel.

Diesel subs can carry cruise missiles as well. For example Russian Kilo can carry them. Cruise missile takes about same space as regular torpedo. Stop making excuses for ur failure.

Stop embarrassing yourself. The Kilo carries only a handful of cruise missiles and has a crew of just 52, in comparison the borei has 20 SLBMs and a crew of 107. It's laughable that you keep comparing submarines armed with SLBMs, as well as many other weapons, with more the double to crew size to a diesel and claiming that the nuclear submarine is larger because of the nuclear engine. No it's larger because it carries SLBMs and has much larger crews.


Kilo:

For comparison look at the missiles carrried by nuclear submarines:

No Russia does not have any. Even ur propaganda link confirms that.

No Russia does have it. I clearly posted a link stating Russia has a submarine with API that is being constructed. You just have a hard time swallowing the truth. I'll tell you who doesn't have API, and that is Israel, you can only get it from others because you are incapable of producing it. Just like Israel is incapable of producing even engines for its tanks.

These were not AIP subs and since then Israel payed billions. Often dealers give u first sample for free.

Yes, Israel is a bum that takes free things. I knew that already. You need some help with food this month?

It shows real footage from space too. In putin cartoon it was all animation.

Wow, Israel showed a space launch amazing! Something Russia has been doing for decades:

Without animation there is no way to show how some of that technology works, nor would anyone be stupid enough to reveal classified technology.

Its solely for internal usage. No one is impressed with silly cartoons and 1950-es technologies.

Israel make plenty of cartoons

And yes, Russia has 1950s technology, that is why Lockheed Martin bought Russian engines and Russian engines have the highest thrust in the world. Old Soviet rocket engines from the 1950s are equivalent to modern Israeli sold fuel junk.


One day maybe Israeli rockets can catch up to the North Koreans once Israel stops using rocket engines that date back to 1100AD

 

[500]

Solid rockets have been around for over 900 years Again they are less efficient and less powerful, it's comical that you think they are better.




http://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/who-built-first-rocket

The first rocket was invented around 1100 AD in China. These rockets used solid propellants and were mainly used as weapons and fireworks. It was not until the 1920s that rocket societies emerged, and by the 1930s and 1940s professional rocket engineering took off.Feb 11, 2012

Really u now go down to that childish nonsense? Obviously we talk about ballistic missiles. Solid ballistic missiles are more complicated than UMDH. First ballistic missiles were liquid, then world moved to solid and no one goes back. USA moved from UMDH to solid, Russia moved too now Iran moving.

Yea, solid fuel is so great....that is why no one uses it for space launches besides Israel and that's because Israel can't make a decent rocket engine. Falcon, proton, Long, etc all use liquid UDMH, the only time solid is used is for some boosters which are cheap and disposable anyways.

More stupidity from u.

1) U dont understand the difference between military ballistic missile and space launcher? U can fuel space launcher for several hours its not a problem.
2) Falcon does not use UMDH, its outdated technology even in space. China moves from UMDH to Hydrogene, Russia tries to replace Proton with Angara.
3) Your claim that no one uses solid for space is another idiocy. Many rockets have solid boosters which produce most of the thrust. European Vega rocket is all solid.

The more u talk the more nonsense u produce. Just stay quiet and people may think u are not a fool.

I am well aware Russian cruise missiles have far greater range then any competitors.
That still does not change the fact that most cruise missile around the world are under 500km in range and again longer range is simply more survivable due to the fact that course corrections and safer, longer routes can be flown.

The reason X-101 has longer range than ACM is simply because its heavier: 1.7 tons vs. 2.4 tons. Thats about it. Increasing range is not a big deal: just increase the fuel tank. The reason why most cruise missiles are under 500 km is also simple: because in 99% of cases u don't need more than 500 km.

That thing was designed in the 1950s, never flew and was cancelled. It was hardly a "cruise missile", more like a jumbo jet.

Here is the engine from that "cruise missile":

Its a cruise missile:

I'm sorry but since then many breakthroughs have happened in nuclear physics, ramjet, computer, and cruise missile technology. The US was flying around in Sabres and F-104 at the time and now uses F-22s and F-35s, that is an idea of how much technology has progressed but you're desperately trying to prove a point by pointing 1950s technology without conceding the technological leap that occurred since.

Technology became more efficient but not any gamechanger.

For example TF33 engine from 1950-es (used on Boeing 707) had fuel consumption of 16 g/kN/s, while most modern CFM LEAP (used on A320neo) has fuel consumption of 12 g/kN/s. Same goes with nuclear reactors. Modern reactors are more effecient and secure than reactors of 1950-es, but no ane gamechanger.

And nuclear submarines can operate submerged as long as the crew has food and is breathing.

So what?

Ohio class is 560 feet with the missile silos taking up over 1/3 the length, this doesn't take into account all the extra crews and electronics needed for the Trident missiles.

View attachment 457434

So substrtact 1/3 from 16,700 tons. We get over 11,000 tons.

No Russia does have it. I clearly posted a link stating Russia has a submarine with API that is being constructed. You just have a hard time swallowing the truth. I'll tell you who doesn't have API, and that is Israel, you can only get it from others because you are incapable of producing it. Just like Israel is incapable of producing even engines for its tanks.

No ur propaganda link says it should be ready in he future.

Yes, Israel is a bum that takes free things. I knew that already. You need some help with food this month?

We payed billions for our subs.

Wow, Israel showed a space launch amazing! Something Russia has been doing for decades:

Its just a real missile test not a cartoon

Israel make plenty of cartoons

Iron dome has lots of real footage too.

And yes, Russia has 1950s technology, that is why Lockheed Martin bought Russian engines and Russian engines have the highest thrust in the world. Old Soviet rocket engines from the 1950s are equivalent to modern Israeli sold fuel junk.

1) I did not say that Russia has only 1950-es technology. But that Putin show is bluff.
2) RD-181 are good engines, but main reason ULA buys them is that simply because they are much cheaper than RS-68 counterpart. And by the way, in most of cases Alas needs solid boosters in addition to RD-181.