Ground Based Strategic Deterrent

If you feel you absolutely must talk about cars, morality, or anything else not related to the F-16, do it here.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1281
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post08 Apr 2021, 17:40

sferrin wrote:Yeah, but no. "Sharing tech" is not at all the same as Yars being deployed on an SSBN (which it's not, nor ever will be). GBSD and D5 will likely "share tech" where it makes sense.


If you look Bulava development you would see they first talked it would be modified Yars for submarine. Then when Bulava had problems (which weren't nothing strange if you look cold war development) they start talking it is 100% new missile. And then Rubezh was anounced which is Yars with one stage less and it have almost same dimensions as Bulava. You think it was just coincidence :wink:

As I see and others, Bulava was modified Yars with one stage less and from that they developed Rubezh. Rubezh wasn't field because of political problems and cheap UR-100 bought from Ukraine.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 Apr 2021, 19:56

Taking the top two stages of land-mobile ICBM, and putting them into a tube at sea is not the same as taking a missile designed to be deployed at sea and sticking it in a silo. Silo-based D-5 is a bad idea. (Unless you want to stick them in Europe I suppose.)
"There I was. . ."
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1281
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post08 Apr 2021, 20:15

sferrin wrote:Taking the top two stages of land-mobile ICBM, and putting them into a tube at sea is not the same as taking a missile designed to be deployed at sea and sticking it in a silo. Silo-based D-5 is a bad idea. (Unless you want to stick them in Europe I suppose.)


Wtf?!?

SLBM is lot harder to be build then icmb. So if you can use icbm as slbm as we can guess with Bulava/Rubezh then D5 in silo variant is lot easier.

Reason why not to use D5 is only because of monopoly. If US strategic missile force is based only on one missile then manufacturer can increase price quite easily during service life something like SLS RS-25 engines which are criminally overexepnsive but there isn't option B.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post09 Apr 2021, 12:11

milosh wrote:
sferrin wrote:Taking the top two stages of land-mobile ICBM, and putting them into a tube at sea is not the same as taking a missile designed to be deployed at sea and sticking it in a silo. Silo-based D-5 is a bad idea. (Unless you want to stick them in Europe I suppose.)


Wtf?!?

SLBM is lot harder to be build then icmb. So if you can use icbm as slbm as we can guess with Bulava/Rubezh then D5 in silo variant is lot easier.

Reason why not to use D5 is only because of monopoly. If US strategic missile force is based only on one missile then manufacturer can increase price quite easily during service life something like SLS RS-25 engines which are criminally overexepnsive but there isn't option B.


Since you still aren't getting it, land-based missiles have different requirements than sea-based, many of which aren't easily incorporated. So yeah, D5 on land is a stupid idea.
"There I was. . ."
Previous

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests