DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Missiles » Russia’s Sneaky Missile: Details Here

Russia’s Sneaky Missile: Details Here

The Russians have been talking for a couple of years, now, about their new missile which can dodge American interceptors. According to Bill Gertz (and grab the usual handful of salt here), that weapon was tested earlier this month.
topol-m-test-fire.jpgThe Topol-M missile has a warhead-carrying reentry vehicle which “can change course and range while traveling at speeds estimated at about 3 miles per second,” Gertz notes.
That’s a serious problem for missile defenses, “because such countermeasures rely on sensors to project a [reentry vehicle’s] flight path and impact point so that an interceptor missile can be guided to the right spot to knock [it] out.“
Situational Awareness has details on the Topol-M. And if the site is right, the weapon is pretty hard to stop.
It “flies a faster, flatter trajectory and has more opportunities to change course in flight… [It] carr[ies] realistic decoys [that] have the same weight and radar cross section as the actual warhead… [And those] warheads and decoys are also equipped with active-deception jamming systems.” Look out.

Share |

November 22nd, 2005 | Missiles | 292018 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/11/22/russias-sneaky-missile-details-here/Russia%27s+Sneaky+Missile%3A+Details+Here2005-11-22+13%3A11%3A29jason You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Rapid Fire 11/22/05 | New Cyberthreats » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Alex says:
    November 22, 2005 at 8:39 am

    Hmm. It’s interesting, but then there’s the Gertz-factor to consider. Remember his “RDX taken to Iran by the Russian army” scoop, single sourced to John A. Shaw, that came right at the peak of the vanishing RDX furore? No evidence at all, and comprehensively debunked in days. Shaw was vanished from the administration immediately post-election.

    Reply
  2. JSAllison says:
    November 22, 2005 at 9:27 am

    Developing weapons in our direction while China nibbles them to death in the east…

    Reply
  3. Pedestrian says:
    November 22, 2005 at 9:56 am

    Result: Russians will be paying more for their missiles to dodge the missile defense systems. That means they will be producing less for the increase of cost.

    Reply
  4. C-Low says:
    November 22, 2005 at 10:04 am

    What we are missing here is the fact that the missle was tracked by radar station in Japan the whole way. I would say if they can track it they can shoot it. Besides the BMD insnt intended to stop the Russian or even Chineese assault just a Nork, rougue take over or maybe a Iran or such limited strike maybe at most a dozen.

    Reply
  5. jtw says:
    November 22, 2005 at 5:11 pm

    Did Russia test flight these things over the United States?
    I live on the East Coast and I hear alot of sonic booms which I always assumed were low flying jet’s.
    I wouldnt rule out a 3 mile per second ICBM missile flying overhead. There are fairly substantial booms with concussions that you can feel.
    Maybe there is some kind of “cold war” going on still.
    Else it would be appreciated if the US Military would stop with Military flights over residential neighborhoods when it is going to make it sound like a form of apocalypse.
    I live in Rhode Island btw. Newport County.

    Reply
  6. Alexp says:
    November 22, 2005 at 7:22 pm

    All this is meaningless with repsect to Russia, dodge or no dodge we both still have enough hardware to annihiliate the entire world population. Interceptors are not for Russian junk but junk of the “third world” kind. Oh and by the way it’s not reliable enough to depend on, but deployed in Alaska anyway.
    Eisenhower warned about the “Military Industrial Complex”. Here’s a perfect example of how your tax dollars get wasted.

    Reply
  7. atroll says:
    November 23, 2005 at 7:22 am

    > Did Russia test flight these things over the
    > United States?
    Where do these people come from?
    Probably voted Democrat, eh?
    > Interceptors are not for Russian junk but junk
    > of the “third world“
    Uh, so… you mean… like China, right? Oh wait, maybe you mean India. No? Ok, so you must mean North Korea (aka South China). oh. Pakistan? (you know, it’s not PC these days to refer to them as “Third World”… they much prefer the term “Emerging Economy”)
    What you need to remember is that a lot of the Russian missle technology has transfered and new developments are probably easily transfered as well. So, you may want to tone down the “Third World” rhetoric a bit.
    Also, by definition, a nuclear missle/warhead that can reach its target without being shot down is not “junk”. Would you like to find out if it’s junk or not? Me neither. I think that’s called “deterrence” or “peace through superior firepower” or “thor has big stick with stone tied to end” or whatever colorful name you’d like to give it.
    My take on missle defense is that we’ve probably become really good (ok, well, maybe just mediocre) at shooting down our missles, but when the real thing happens, all bets are off (what’s the average flight time (sub launched)? 8 minutes? Support missle defense? I guess PT Barnum was right.)

    Reply
  8. emilio aragon says:
    November 23, 2005 at 12:48 pm

    That comment @ …must have voted democrat…, just shows the added divisions in our country, which begs the question, how do “they” beat us?
    Divide and conquer, eg, blue states vs. red states, etc.

    Reply
  9. jtw says:
    November 23, 2005 at 5:00 pm

    There would be no way I would vote democrat. So the answer is no, I voted for Bush who is a Republican. But either decision is a bad decision because both sides spit on the Constitution.
    So go end yourself quietly. I am not an expert on loud noises/concussions for the sky, so how the hell would I know. In fact an ICBM probably sounds exactly like one of the “noises” I heard and I was pretty sure at least someones house probably fell over, although nothing was damaged.
    So how about in addition to ending yourself quietly, you STFU too.

    Reply
  10. wheels says:
    November 24, 2005 at 11:51 am

    I guess that “probably voted democrat” was meant as irony. Repulicans think the world is out to get them, and they should after 8 years with Bush.

    Reply
  11. Byron Skinner says:
    November 24, 2005 at 2:45 pm

    Good Morning Folks,
    I think “mputtre” pretty much said all that needs to be said about the Topol-M, it is at heart a tactical threatre level weapon. The irony here is that the weapon that was most likely be the most effectine in countering the Topol-M was the Navy’s Standard-3 Missile which as we all know was cancelled a couple of weeks ago.
    The reason that this article is even seeing the light of day is “The Missile Defense System” that everyday is losing more of it’s reason for existence.
    With the lessing of any, if it existed in the first place threats from North Korea and Iran, Bush can forget about Iraq in his “Axis of Evil” the $Billions being spent on this public works project for Sen. Ted Stevens (R.Alaska) and Boeing seems more and more an unjustified waste of DoD money especially in the current deficient enviroment.
    Senator Stevens already has got his M-1126 “Striker” BCT and who knoes how many $253Million bridges to nowhere, I think it’s time to pull the pulg on “The Missile Defense System” and take our loses. Maybe there is some oil under the sites, that could help refund back a little.
    ALLON,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  12. Orval Fairbairn says:
    November 27, 2005 at 11:55 pm

    If the Russian decoys have the same mass and configuration as real Reentry vehicles (RVs), why don’t they just add more real ones? The missile is carrying the same payload, regrdless.
    The jinking RV sounds like some of the stuff we have tried since the late 1970s –1980s.

    Reply
  13. rocket says:
    November 30, 2005 at 1:41 pm

    Byron,
    SM-3 hasn’t been cancelled. In fact, it just had a very successful test on the 17th. It would, of course, still have to be tested against a long-range threat.

    Reply
  14. Joe Shmoe says:
    January 28, 2006 at 7:22 pm

    I think by merging an Electromagnetic railgun with ramjet technology you can develop a missile that can shoot down the topol M. Upon destruction the missile would act as a shot gun dispersing ballbearings. The missile would use radar but would also use an onboard laser or whatever technology is out there to acquire its target and not be fooled. Of course it would have to use it similtaneously and inconjunction so as to not be fooled. The missle should use together optical, radar, infrared, laser, plasma detection and other targeting technologies and use a process of trial an error as to not become fooled. The missile should have vents on its side to give it exceptional agility.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up? (Updated)
    • South of the Border Mayhem
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
    • Rise of the Cyber Arms Dealers
    • Author Steven Pressfield Blogs Afghan Visit With Gen. Mattis
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
    • JSF Costs Jump 50 Percent
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
    Recent Comments
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      hmmm, i remember FCS Manned ground vehicles being canceled...
      Sirad
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
      I think the best strategy was mentioned in the...
      MCQknight
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
      Not so much because of ieds/mines but because of...
      MCQknight
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up? (Updated)
      I was so fortunate...
      chi hair irons
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
      I saw monster IED's in Iraq starting in about 2005....
      Dave
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
      Because snipers don't have any better...
      Armchair Ninja
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
      And still lost.
      Politico
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
      Good Lord! We really need more effective measures to...
      @Shogun79
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      Actually, Obama has cut back all the new weapons...
      BigBad
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
      May God bless and protect your son, and all our military...
      Bev
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage