41 replies to this topic

[Waris]

What are the weapons forbidden under the START I treaty? Can the external hardpoints be used for fitting conventional payloads?

[CommanderJB]

No, nothing at all. Remember that the B-1B was always intended for low-level penetration to deliver nukes, and there are limits on total weapons capacity on conventional forces that can in theory deliver nuclear weapons, so because these hardpoints were intended to carry nuclear SRAMs or B-61 gravity bombs, even though you could theoretically mount a normal Tomahawk on one the treaty forbids even the possibility of using them at all. So I am led to believe, anyway.

[Waris]

Then in a conventional sense the Tu-160 wins, 61k - 27k = 34k payload which is substantially less than the max. conventional payloads carried by the Swan.

[CommanderJB]

Indeed so. I find it interesting that the Tupolevs weren't much affected by the START or SALT treaties; they would have been outlawed under SALT II, which led to Tupolev designing the Tu-170 which had no nuclear capability, but as the treaty was repealed a year before the Tu-160 entered service the design was left on the shelf. From what I have been able to determing they did have their numbers limited under START I, but the aircraft themselves remained unaffected. The B-1B, meanwhile, had its capability severely curtailed. But then, the USAF has so many more B-1Bs that it's a bit irrelevant really.

[The Wandering Jew]

There is a rumor that the Tupolev Blackjacks were to carry thermobaric weapons.
And thermobaric weapons are almost similar to nuclear ones in terms of damage.
Since nukes are banned (somehow), thermobaric weapons would seem to act as an alternative.
Imagine that.

P.S. And it SLBMs are not controlled by any treaty, if I am not mistaken.

[CommanderJB]

A rumour which I suspect would have a very reasonable chance of being true. The Russians are and always have been the world leaders in thermobaric weaponry - just look at the 'Father Of All Bombs', claimed (though not verified) to have been delivered from a Tu-160 - and they've developed and deployed multiple thermobaric missile systems such as the (in)famous TOS-1 and the RPO-A 'Shmel' 'portable flamethrower' (in reality effectively a one-shot thermobaric RPG which can, correctly aimed, destroy most if not all of a house). Given that the main standoff armament of the Tu-160, the Raduga Kh-55 (AS-15 'Kent') is entirely nuclear in design, and such weapons are not all that relevant, useful or common these days when compared to conventional ordnance, I would be astonished if it hasn't been retrofitted with a conventional payload by now, and thermobaric payloads would be a prime choice for large-scale demolition to replace the 200kt nuclear option.
Edit - also, SLBMs, being Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles, are most certainly curtailed by the START and SALT talks. Specifically they were forbidden to have multiple warheads, and those that did were gradually destroyed. An example is the R-39 (SS-N-20 Sturgeon) which used to equip the Typhoon-class; these used to carry 10 200kt warheads each (and there were over 120 missiles deployed, meaning that the Russian submarine fleet had the astonishing capacity to shower enemies up to 8,250km away with 1200 warheads from these missiles alone), but were outlawed under START I and II and from 1996 onwards to 2004 all of them were gradually destroyed. The Typhoons have also been retired from service, except for one which is serving as a test pad for the next-gen SS-NX-30 'Bulava' missile.

Edited by CommanderJB, 04 July 2008 - 10:56.

[The Wandering Jew]

@^:
1. The Blackjack did deploy the "Father of All Bombs". Maybe it was in free-fall? (I doubt it is in IR or radar-guidance.)
2. It seems that thermobaric weapons would be the trend in the near future. No radiation, almost same effect, at less costs (as compared to a nuke, but nothing beats a nuke!)
3. Yes, TOS-1 is infamous. It is inhuman to use thermobaric weapons to humans. :wahhhhhaa:
4. Too bad the Typhoons were decommissioned. But the warheads (of both parties involved in START I and II) were dismantled and installed on mobile launchers (but I have to verify this). Talk about treaties. :chilldead:

We shall see supersonic bombers still in deployment (better to have one and not need one than to need one and not having one).

[Dr. Strangelove]

The FOAB does not come anywhere near being as powerful as a 200kt nuclear warhead. It may be able to replace a tactical nuclear weapon, but it wouldn't have any strategic value.

[CommanderJB]

Oh indeed. But then, I don't think anything will ever replace nukes for their strategic value. I wonder whether they're still considered tactically relevant by the U.S. in particular - after all, it's not like the 50's where everyone was like, 'Hey, it's a normal warhead but with a waaaaay bigger boom, right? Cool! Lets outfit everything with them!' Instead, what with all the force multipliers, precision munitions, combined-effect weapons, standoff capabilities etc. they basically have the capability to do almost everything nukes do without the abject devastation - unless of course it's abject devastation you're after, i.e. strategic level weaponry.

[Dr. Strangelove]

CommanderJB, on 7 Jul 2008, 9:23, said:

Oh indeed. But then, I don't think anything will ever replace nukes for their strategic value. I wonder whether they're still considered tactically relevant by the U.S. in particular - after all, it's not like the 50's where everyone was like, 'Hey, it's a normal warhead but with a waaaaay bigger boom, right? Cool! Lets outfit everything with them!'

ahhhhhhh... the good old days...

EDIT: I'd like to add, that these topics are rather pointless, since even back when it was still Stalin's time, the reason why the USSR feared the US was not because of it's nuclear capabilities, but because of it's massive GDP.

Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 07 July 2008 - 09:31.

[The Wandering Jew]

That's the reason why USSR fell. Its GDp went to the nukes.

And nukes are just deterrent. No smart president will trade a few cities of his own for, let's say, a gold mine and natural gas reserve.

Well, I could be wrong. History did have dumb-*ss leaders. :stickattack2:

[Medve]

Tupoljev-s are nice, but they kept a good old tradition with their concorde-like aircraft. They finished it some time earlier than the british, so they could keep up the techrace.

It fell apart on the demonstration flight. This is why I don't care that people usually like russian tech more than american. They usually do because american tech is overhyped which I can understand. But the technological supremacy of america is clear.

I like the large tupoljevs, but here I'll go for the B-1 as white isn't a color for military planes. It's not practical.

Medve

[CommanderJB]

The white paint is actually anti-flash, meaning it its designed to reflect the better part of the intense burst of heat and light that is the first visible part of a nuclear explosion. Just goes to show exactly what these planes were designed for, really. Two of the three elements of Britain's V-Bomber force, the Handley Page Victor and Vickers Valiant, used the same scheme, though it wasn't very popular because of the obvious visibility problems. Nonetheless, it's still there for a reason.

[T-34]

thr reason russian missiles are so much heavier is because they carry way larger warheads then the us counterparts. the KH-55 has a 750-900 kg warhead, while the AGM-129 is smaller. just LOOK at the russian missiles, like the SA-2 and AS-4, they have always had huge warheads and always will...so they will be heavier.

[CommanderJB]

It's extremely difficult to find information on the current status of Russian cruise missile projects, given that there are a wide range of derivatives, designs and modifications all with very different characteristics and no firm information on just about any of them. From what I can gather:
The primary ALCM of the VVS is the base Raduga Kh-55. This is a purely nuclear-armed long-range (2500km) standoff missile with a 200kt warhead. There are up to 12 of these missiles carried aboard a Tu-160.
Also, the base Kh-55 was modified with external conformal fuel tanks to produce the extended-range Kh-55SM (also known as the Kh-55-OK). This can now hit targets up to 3500km away. The Kh-55SM has definitely entered production, and I believe takes up the same space in a Tu-160's bomb bays. I have found nothing to indicate a conventionally-armed variant of the Kh-55SM.
The Kh-65 is a tactical variant of the Kh-55 with a range limited to 600km to avoid treaty restrictions. I can find no info on its warhead type, but I suspect it to be nuclear. It has a variant, the Kh-65SE, which is a conventionally-armed anti-ship cruise missile with a maximum range of only 280km.
The Kh-101 is a highly developed and much heavier version (by almost a ton) of the Kh-55, and has probably been developed further from the -55SM. It has a 1 ton HE-FRAG warhead, far outstripping its contemporaries, and has a range somewhere between 3000 and 5000km. Information on it is so limited it's likely this was just a developmental project, but there were reports that it was tested in 1998 and was intended at some stage to be a fleet-wide weapons upgrade.
The Kh-102 is a nuclear-armed variant of the -101.
The Kh-SD is apparently smaller, lighter tactical version of the -101, though it's possible it uses technology gained in the -101 project on a development of the -65/-65SM. Again, this has a range of only a few hundred kilometres and is probably conventional, but I'd be more than willing to believe that there exists a nuclear version. There may or may not exist an anti-ship variant of the -SD.

HOWEVER! Lastly, development on all -65, -65SE, -101, -102 and -SD appears to have been cancelled in favour of the Raduga Kh-555. This is a direct development of the -55SM but uses the seeker from the -101 and a conventional warhead instead of a nuclear one, and almost certainly has similar range. Stock -55SM missiles can and I believe are been converted into the upgraded Kh-555 version.
So as you can see, it's bloody complicated, but I think the upshot of it all is that the Russian and American missiles are actually sort of the same. I can't give you a true comparison without warhead stats for the -555, but it appears that this is the only conventionally-armed Russian ALCM currently looking for operational capability.

Edited by CommanderJB, 29 August 2008 - 02:13.

[The Wandering Jew]

@^:
Tried Jane's Defence?

[CommanderJB]

I generally use GlobalSecurity, as Janes' never provides you with all the relevant information, just whatever small chunk of it they're willing to let you have for free. However, after a brief search, I did come across the first fifth of an interesting article, and it appears that the Kh-101 has not been cancelled after all, but is instead apparently an AGM-129 equivalent; stealthy, long-ranged, and large and expensive, but with a non-nuclear option. Interesting. I had thought they'd be content with the -55 and -55SM for the next few years.
However, I have been leading the thread somewhat off-track, and apologise. This was 'necroed', but being in the Warfare Discussions and I believe still on the front page that isn't so much of a problem, but if people want to keep discussing in this thread probably better go back to the original topic or just let this die as it was happily doing. Again, sorry for leading this one off-topic.

Edited by CommanderJB, 29 August 2008 - 07:36.