Some months ago I linked a thread here to an article about Russia's decision to put armored trains back on the track as part of its defense efforts. It didn't make much sense to me then, although there was a neat suggestion that they might be laagered somehow.

At any rate, the Russians are now announcing that they have plans to put trains on the rails that can each carry a half dozen nuclear weapons.

quote:

Russia Is Ready To Build A Train That Can Carry And Fire 6 Nuclear Missiles
Daniel Brown, Buisness Insider, 7/11/17

Russia is apparently ready to build two terrifying weapons of war: a 100-ton ballistic missile that can destroy countries and a train that can carry and fire six nuclear missiles, according to Pravda, the Communist Party's outlet in Russia. The missile and train are "on the level of absolute readiness of the industry for their implementation, should the relevant decision be made to include the projects in the sate armament program," Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told Pravda.

The 100-ton RS-28 Sarmat nuclear missile, of "Satan 2" as NATO calls it, reportedly holds 10 warheads and is capable of destroying a country the size of France, Newsweek reported. The Satan 2 is an upgraded version of the RS-36M, which NATO called "Satan" in the 70s. But its production has been put off since 2014. The Russian Defense Ministry also said last week that it wouldn't test it until late 2017.

The Barguzin trains, on the other hand, will look like passenger trains, be able to travel 1,500 miles a day, and hold up to six 55-ton RS-24 Yars thermonuclear ICBMs. The Barguzin train is also an upgrade of a Soviet design that only carried three nuclear ICBMs. Russia plans to test an ICBM from the Barguzin train in 2019, the National Interest reported in March.

The US considered putting nukes on trains in the 1980s, but later scrapped the idea. Nuclear trains are beneficial in that they're mobile and difficult to locate. However, a 2014 RAND study said that there are shortcomings to nuclear trains. Railways can be blocked by snow, and the enemy simply has to surveil the railways to find the trains. Also, once found, they're easier to take out. "Mobile systems that depend on roads or rail lines visible via overhead imagery effectively shrink the target area and could significantly lower the number of missiles require to barrage mobile systems," RAND said.

Russia currently has about 7,000 nuclear weapons, while the US has about 6,800.

Edited for space but not content. Original text at http://www.yahoo.com/finance/n...carry-220459729.html

Will Putin build them? I guess we'll see. And, if he does, maybe we'll be better able to figure out what in the world he expects having nuke-armed trains to do for him.

Yeah, Russia has had a bigger interest in armored trains than the rest of the world, dating back quite some time.

While many countries dabbled with them in the late 19th and early 20th century, Russia has used them fairly extensively for the past 100+ years, from the Russo-Japanese War, through WW1 and the subsequent Russian Civil War, into WW2, then throughout the Cold War, and as recently as the war in Chechnya at the turn of the century.

Makes more sense for them given how vast their territory is...

And they look really cool and are great for movies.

They could work this into the new Bond movie. The missle even has a cool name the "Satan 2", capable of destroying an entire country!

The movie will be called "Throw Momma' of all bombs From the Train".

GGF

Russia's trains are as important to them as ours were in the late 1800s to middle 1900s. Traversing Russia unless you fly is using the train. I think it's a cultural thing. Just like interstates are to us.

Well that's certainly an eye opener. Super powerful nukes? Wow.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
They could work this into the new Bond movie. The missle even has a cool name the "Satan 2", capable of destroying an entire country!

You know, it's almost not really a Bond movie without a good train scene. Would you go with a government, a brilliant madman, or the Chechens for baddies?

Didn't we look at a similar system with the proposed but never build midget man system, or was that road based?

He must be thinking he'll be able to take out spy satellites.

Personally, I'd not put nukes out where two little explosions (on tracks in front and behind) would lock them in place for mayhem. Yeah, they're probably guarded heavily. But if you know beforehand how heavily, and can pick the time and place.....

That article is either poorly written, messed up in translation, pure propaganda, or a combination thereof.

quote:

Russia Is Ready To Build A Train That Can Carry And Fire 6 Nuclear Missiles
Daniel Brown, Buisness Insider, 7/11/17

Russia is apparently ready to build two terrifying weapons of war: a 100-ton ballistic missile that can destroy countries and a train that can carry and fire six nuclear missiles, according to Pravda, the Communist Party's outlet in Russia.

Ok, TWO "terrifying weapons?" First off, the missile is just a newer version of the SS-18 missile that they Sovs deployed decades ago. It's worrisome that they are spending the money on new missiles, when our missiles are all decades old and in desperate need of replacement. HOWEVER, the train itself is NOT a 'weapon.' It is part of a 'weapons system.' Just like a B-52 or Ohio-class nuclear sub is worthless without the nuclear weapons, the train itself is absolutely harmless to the US without the missiles. So, the Ruskies are only working ONE 'terrifying weapon' (and I'm being generous in repeating the 'terrifying' part, as they already have a butt-ton of nukes). A new missile really isn't much to get worried about, as the old ones are entirely capable of killing us all.

quote:

The missile and train are "on the level of absolute readiness of the industry for their implementation, should the relevant decision be made to include the projects in the sate armament program," Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told Pravda.

This sounds like they haven't even been allocated funds in the budget yet, so nothing at all may come from this.

quote:

The 100-ton RS-28 Sarmat nuclear missile, of "Satan 2" as NATO calls it, reportedly holds 10 warheads and is capable of destroying a country the size of France, Newsweek reported.

Yeah, as if ONE missile with 10 warheads could 'destroy an entire country.' Stupid hype and outright lies. It could destroy the heart of a couple CITIES, but the only country it could 'destroy' is Vatican City (or maybe Andorra). Now, with enough missiles, you could arguably 'destroy a country,' but you could do the same thing with ANY nuke system.

quote:

The Barguzin trains, on the other hand, will look like passenger trains, be able to travel 1,500 miles a day, and hold up to six 55-ton RS-24 Yars thermonuclear ICBMs. The Barguzin train is also an upgrade of a Soviet design that only carried three nuclear ICBMs. Russia plans to test an ICBM from the Barguzin train in 2019, the National Interest reported in March.

The Sovs deployed the SS-24 missile in silos and in trains (I assume this is the system that could hold 3 missiles). So, big whoop, it can carry 3 more missiles per train. It is simply evolutionary, not revolutionary. Also, it 'can' travel 1500 miles per day, but likely wouldn't. Rail mobile systems are better than silo-based systems because they can move. We know where every single Ruskie missile silo is, and can target them in case of WWIII. Road- and rail-mobile systems are harder to locate. Of course, we generally know where the rail lines are for the rail-mounted missiles, but we don't know where the trains are at any given moment (once they move out of garrison, that is). So, finding them is nearly impossible in a nuclear war scenario (and even if we find them via spy satellites, they can always move if the bombs start flying). We can't nuke the entirety of the Ruskie rail system, as we don't have enough nukes. There are thousands of miles of rail lines, so these missiles are essentially immune from our counter-strike.

Road/rail mobile and submarine-based nukes are generally considered second-strike weapons. In a 'typical' WWIII scenario, the first weapons launched would be silo-based missiles, as it's an assumption that they would be targeted by the enemy in the first strikes. Any missiles not launched from the silos would be considered lost, as both the US and Ruskies would likely target these silos in their first strikes. SO, after the first strike, all the missile silos and airbases would be considered to be complete losses from enemy nukes in the first strike. The subs and mobile systems would be held back for secondary strikes, so that the country has a credible deterrent against further strikes after the dust settled from the first one (like a back-up gun for a CCW'er). This is the attraction of mobile systems (road/rail/subs) - if an enemy cannot target them, they cannot strike/destroy them, leaving the country with an 'untouchable' nuclear weapon reserve. Now, the B-2 stealth bomber was built specifically to roam over the post-execution USSR (following the first strike) and hunt down and kill mobile systems. This is part of the reason it was so bloody expensive. Besides being shaped to be 'invisible' to radar, it has a low-probability-of-detection radar system to detect, target, and strike hidden mobile systems without the enemy being able to detect these radar emissions (we know where the roads and rails are; we just don't know where the individual missiles are on those roads/rails (imagine trying to find a single car on a 100-mile stretch of highway) ). So, the B-2 would launch when the first wave of missiles were inbound, and hours later, would cruise around the USSR plinking away at the Soviet 'second-strike' systems. When I read about this capability in a book, it was no wonder to me that the B-2 was so expensive - I was actually amazed it didn't cost more.

The US actually considered an underground rail system (like a subway on steroids) for the Peacekeeper system - it would be undetectable by normal surveillance systems, and could be located anywhere on hundreds of miles of lines. Of course, the Sovs would know where these 'subway tunnels' were (they would be able to see where we were digging the tunnels), but like their rail lines, they could not know where the missiles were (it's not practical to drop a nuke every quarter mile across 100 miles of rail lines).

So, rail-mounted nukes are actually a pretty good idea, IMO. They aren't perfect, but nothing is. EVERY system has limitations.

quote:

However, a 2014 RAND study said that there are shortcomings to nuclear trains. Railways can be blocked by snow, and the enemy simply has to surveil the railways to find the trains. Also, once found, they're easier to take out. "Mobile systems that depend on roads or rail lines visible via overhead imagery effectively shrink the target area and could significantly lower the number of missiles require to barrage mobile systems," RAND said.

Ok, as stated, EVERY system has 'shortcomings.' It's irrelevant that the rail lines can be blocked by snow. And, again, there could be dozens of trains to find, each with 3/6 nukes. Surveillance is NOT an unlimited asset. Say a spy satellite does locate a train. The first thing these trains will do once the missiles start flying is to MOVE. Now, we don't know where the trains are anymore. And, you can bet they have the same snow-removal capabilities for their trains that the US does (the USSR/Ruskies, as noted elsewhere in this thread, have a LONG tradition/heritage with operating trains, even in horrendous winter conditions). So, once the trains move, they are essentially undetected and immune from attack. Sure, we can hunt them down again, but that takes time and resources. And that assumes that the facilities for operating these spy satellites (large ground stations) survived the initial strikes and can operate. What good is a $10 billion spy satellite that can read license plates from orbit if the ground station is destroyed and all the operators are dead?

And I have a problem with the part where they say "once found, the are easier to take out." We would probably strike these systems with nukes. Now, a nuke doesn't care if the target is an above-ground train or a missile silo. It will STILL dig a crater big enough to form a small lake in the target, so the trains are really no more vulnerable than the silos are. It's not like we will send A-10s or Strike Eagles over the heart of Russia to plink these trains with JDAMs. . .

Perhaps they are talking about the fact that they are above-ground and more vulnerable to near-misses. Well, the trains are armored and EMP-hardened, so that they are practically immune from anything other than a direct hit.

And I don't think anybody is going to 'barrage mobile systems.' That implies that we would spam the entire operating area (rail lines, in this example), to try to take out the missiles we can't nail down to a specific location. You can probably try to 'barrage' several thousands of miles of rail line, but we don't have THAT many nukes.



This is really not that big of a deal. The Sovs had mobile missiles (road and rail) for decades. The US never deployed them, as our missile subs provide us with the un-targetable second-strike capability. Therefore, there was never any *need* to deploy them. Soviet subs were never as good as ours, and everybody knew it. Therefore, the Sovs had to hedge their bets and spend huge sums of money on other 'survivable' systems to provide them the same capability that our subs do. This is really not that big of a deal. Just a scare piece to stir up hype and rating.

Besides, the Ruskies may never even build the things.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:
Well that's certainly an eye opener. Super powerful nukes? Wow.

No. Just regular nukes, on a *proposed* new missile on a *proposed* new launcher system. There is nothing 'super-powerful' about them. Don't fall for the hype.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

Personally, I'd not put nukes out where two little explosions (on tracks in front and behind) would lock them in place for mayhem. Yeah, they're probably guarded heavily. But if you know beforehand how heavily, and can pick the time and place.....

The rail lines for these things are hundreds (probably thousands) of miles long. Try finding ONE train on a rail line between Omaha and Seattle. We could take out sections of their rail lines, but never enough to really make a difference. If you are worried about survivability, look at our airfields and missile silos. The Ruskies know exactly where every single one of those is. Nobody can target an entire rail line (or interstate highway system). AT BEST, you could slightly hinder their mobility by planting nukes every 50 miles along the rail lines. You MIGHT get lucky and hit a train or two, but the missiles on the surviving majority of trains would be just as lethal. And, these systems are designed for post-first-strike execution, at which time our surveillance capabilities will be SEVERELY diminished (spy sats require huge ground-based infrastructure to operate).

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

Personally, I'd not put nukes out where two little explosions (on tracks in front and behind) would lock them in place for mayhem. Yeah, they're probably guarded heavily. But if you know beforehand how heavily, and can pick the time and place.....

The rail lines for these things are hundreds (probably thousands) of miles long. Try finding ONE train on a rail line between Omaha and Seattle. We could take out sections of their rail lines, but never enough to really make a difference. If you are worried about survivability, look at our airfields and missile silos. The Ruskies know exactly where every single one of those is. Nobody can target an entire rail line (or interstate highway system). AT BEST, you could slightly hinder their mobility by planting nukes every 50 miles along the rail lines. You MIGHT get lucky and hit a train or two, but the missiles on the surviving majority of trains would be just as lethal. And, these systems are designed for post-first-strike execution, at which time our surveillance capabilities will be SEVERELY diminished (spy sats require huge ground-based infrastructure to operate).

Sorry, I wasn't being clear there. Was thinking there about the bugaboo of all Russian governments since the Tsars...internal threats, rather than us.

Nasty scenario 1: some Islamist sympathizers get inside info and send out the train schedule and details of the defense plan to Chechnyan rebels. Two teams on track demo and one on acquisition, and now they have nukes.

RE: hiding, yes mobile beats static for not being found (though not for hardening.) Russia is a huge place to hide stuff. I would imagine finding some satellite-identifiable signatures of ICBM-capable rolling stock would become a top intelligence priority.

You wouldn't need nukes to lock a train up in a section of track. Bridges, switches, etc. would be vulnerable to conventional stuff in adequate quantity.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:
Well that's certainly an eye opener. Super powerful nukes? Wow.

That was kind of my thought.

What exactly is the point of this? If they launch them they (along with everyone else) will be destroyed.

Just for the record, Hound Dog's correct - this is all proposed. Another article pointed out that to 'destroy a country' the country would have to be rather small - I think the implication was that the ten warheads on one missile would be enough for, say, Costa Rica.

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:
Didn't we look at a similar system with the proposed but never build midget man system, or was that road based?

We were looking at a dedicated rail system set up somewhere in the North West. We never followed through. The story given out was that we never did it because it was too expensive, but I think the truth was that a rail system big enough to hide the missiles required too much land for the government to sequester and secure for the purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
...some Islamic sympathizers get inside info and sen out the train schedule and the details of the defense plan to the Chechnyan rebels.

Now that would keep me up nights. There are people who live out in the middle of nowhere, even in Russia. The thing is, they're always around so they can develop a pretty good idea of what passes through and when or what opportunities happen to pop up. Throw in bad enough weather to screw with communications and support, a few dozy guards who've been lulled into inattention by inactivity and the cold, and a couple of Chechens who couldn't get laid at gunpoint, and you're looking at an epic dose of bad luck just waiting to happen.

The thing is, those risks would always be around. Sooner or later the guys guarding the train will miss a trick.