Krakek
@krakek.bsky.social
a Quasi-NEET interested in all things military.
Current focus on all things nuclear.
Current focus on all things nuclear.
Back in the late Soviet era there was work being done on an APS for silos (specifically R-36M2 silos).
This system used "shotguns" with tungsten rods to defeat enemy RVs in lower atmosphere.
It was successfully tested against RVs (Baikonur -> Kamchatka track) in late 80s.
This system used "shotguns" with tungsten rods to defeat enemy RVs in lower atmosphere.
It was successfully tested against RVs (Baikonur -> Kamchatka track) in late 80s.
October 3, 2025 at 10:58 AM
Back in the late Soviet era there was work being done on an APS for silos (specifically R-36M2 silos).
This system used "shotguns" with tungsten rods to defeat enemy RVs in lower atmosphere.
It was successfully tested against RVs (Baikonur -> Kamchatka track) in late 80s.
This system used "shotguns" with tungsten rods to defeat enemy RVs in lower atmosphere.
It was successfully tested against RVs (Baikonur -> Kamchatka track) in late 80s.
So, is CENTCOM going to be the first to ever use nuclear armed ICBMs in a real armed conflict?
September 30, 2025 at 8:41 AM
So, is CENTCOM going to be the first to ever use nuclear armed ICBMs in a real armed conflict?
The alternative (reserve) method would be for the airborne CP to communicate with the Perimeter RCC (static or mobile) and order it to launch the (silo or TEL based) command missiles.
Command missiles would transmit launch commands in data over radio, to launchers.
5/13
Command missiles would transmit launch commands in data over radio, to launchers.
5/13
July 25, 2025 at 8:38 AM
The alternative (reserve) method would be for the airborne CP to communicate with the Perimeter RCC (static or mobile) and order it to launch the (silo or TEL based) command missiles.
Command missiles would transmit launch commands in data over radio, to launchers.
5/13
Command missiles would transmit launch commands in data over radio, to launchers.
5/13
With those Division level CPs using robust (wideband noise-like signals) LF/MF back up radio link to launch the weapons remotely, bypassing the Regiment level crews.
4/13
4/13
July 25, 2025 at 8:38 AM
With those Division level CPs using robust (wideband noise-like signals) LF/MF back up radio link to launch the weapons remotely, bypassing the Regiment level crews.
4/13
4/13
However, there were fall back options.
For example the airborne CP of the GS (and those of services) could use the older method - EAM-like messages to communicate launch orders to the mobile Division level CPs (or the airborne VLF relays when exercising C2 over SSBNs)
3/13
For example the airborne CP of the GS (and those of services) could use the older method - EAM-like messages to communicate launch orders to the mobile Division level CPs (or the airborne VLF relays when exercising C2 over SSBNs)
3/13
July 25, 2025 at 8:38 AM
However, there were fall back options.
For example the airborne CP of the GS (and those of services) could use the older method - EAM-like messages to communicate launch orders to the mobile Division level CPs (or the airborne VLF relays when exercising C2 over SSBNs)
3/13
For example the airborne CP of the GS (and those of services) could use the older method - EAM-like messages to communicate launch orders to the mobile Division level CPs (or the airborne VLF relays when exercising C2 over SSBNs)
3/13
First of all - there was a robust primary system, with the General Staff Central Command Post having direct C2 over the entire triad, with many redundant facilities (ie 3 hardened ones for GS alone, separate ones for services)
This would allow rapid LoW, if necessary.
2/13
This would allow rapid LoW, if necessary.
2/13
July 25, 2025 at 8:38 AM
First of all - there was a robust primary system, with the General Staff Central Command Post having direct C2 over the entire triad, with many redundant facilities (ie 3 hardened ones for GS alone, separate ones for services)
This would allow rapid LoW, if necessary.
2/13
This would allow rapid LoW, if necessary.
2/13
So how would Soviet nuclear forces operate in the 1980s (say 1987)?
1/13
1/13
July 25, 2025 at 8:38 AM
So how would Soviet nuclear forces operate in the 1980s (say 1987)?
1/13
1/13
Old ideas that are popular again :)
July 24, 2025 at 9:45 AM
Old ideas that are popular again :)
So no overpressure hardening etc for the one near Offutt then?
July 23, 2025 at 3:12 PM
So no overpressure hardening etc for the one near Offutt then?
One of the more common concerns during the cold war regarding the US NC3 equipment would seem to be it's reliance on it's elements on external power supplies, particularly in communications infrastructure, with leased civilian lines.
July 22, 2025 at 8:40 AM
One of the more common concerns during the cold war regarding the US NC3 equipment would seem to be it's reliance on it's elements on external power supplies, particularly in communications infrastructure, with leased civilian lines.
This is more or less the vibes I am getting from my current research on the US and Soviet NC3 history.
It is quite sad that US did not pursue DUCC/DUSC (or SCCs).
It is quite sad that US did not pursue DUCC/DUSC (or SCCs).
July 21, 2025 at 10:44 AM
This is more or less the vibes I am getting from my current research on the US and Soviet NC3 history.
It is quite sad that US did not pursue DUCC/DUSC (or SCCs).
It is quite sad that US did not pursue DUCC/DUSC (or SCCs).
Surface level sources seem to indicate that there may have been a two way channel at the ACP or in other words at the equivalent to the wing CP.
July 15, 2025 at 4:32 PM
Surface level sources seem to indicate that there may have been a two way channel at the ACP or in other words at the equivalent to the wing CP.
A historic question.
I have seen a claim made that SAC HQ had a near real-time data on the status of it's forces.
Yet in other places (ie description of REACT) it appears that the automated C3 interface was receive only.
Was the polling done manually, ie over phone?
I have seen a claim made that SAC HQ had a near real-time data on the status of it's forces.
Yet in other places (ie description of REACT) it appears that the automated C3 interface was receive only.
Was the polling done manually, ie over phone?
July 15, 2025 at 11:08 AM
A historic question.
I have seen a claim made that SAC HQ had a near real-time data on the status of it's forces.
Yet in other places (ie description of REACT) it appears that the automated C3 interface was receive only.
Was the polling done manually, ie over phone?
I have seen a claim made that SAC HQ had a near real-time data on the status of it's forces.
Yet in other places (ie description of REACT) it appears that the automated C3 interface was receive only.
Was the polling done manually, ie over phone?
Did you know that until 2009 there was a treaty between Russia and Ukraine, one of the terms of which was that Russia would provide early warning system data to Ukraine?
June 25, 2025 at 8:37 PM
Did you know that until 2009 there was a treaty between Russia and Ukraine, one of the terms of which was that Russia would provide early warning system data to Ukraine?
700m of hard rock and a good liner can make it fairly survivable.
June 23, 2025 at 9:50 AM
700m of hard rock and a good liner can make it fairly survivable.
Central portion, a similar novel top structure (2020-2024).
4/6
4/6
June 23, 2025 at 9:00 AM
Central portion, a similar novel top structure (2020-2024).
4/6
4/6
Eastern portion, a new helicopter pad (2020-2024).
3/6
3/6
June 23, 2025 at 9:00 AM
Eastern portion, a new helicopter pad (2020-2024).
3/6
3/6
mt. Weather, western portion (2020-2024-2025), a possible new vertical shaft in the supporting area, looks like some excavated soil.
2/6
2/6
June 23, 2025 at 9:00 AM
mt. Weather, western portion (2020-2024-2025), a possible new vertical shaft in the supporting area, looks like some excavated soil.
2/6
2/6
To do a palette cleanser from all the Iranian content...
Here is some activity at the well known COG/COOP sites!
Starting with Site-R (aka "Raven Rock"), northern part (2020-2024), a possible new portal (ie expanding ventilation for generators/aircon)
1/6
Here is some activity at the well known COG/COOP sites!
Starting with Site-R (aka "Raven Rock"), northern part (2020-2024), a possible new portal (ie expanding ventilation for generators/aircon)
1/6
June 23, 2025 at 9:00 AM
To do a palette cleanser from all the Iranian content...
Here is some activity at the well known COG/COOP sites!
Starting with Site-R (aka "Raven Rock"), northern part (2020-2024), a possible new portal (ie expanding ventilation for generators/aircon)
1/6
Here is some activity at the well known COG/COOP sites!
Starting with Site-R (aka "Raven Rock"), northern part (2020-2024), a possible new portal (ie expanding ventilation for generators/aircon)
1/6
This is a very strong conclusion to make, particularly in the light of both the active retooling and the sustained YaRS-series production rates so far, deployment of novel NC3 and other infrastructure and so on.
8/9
8/9
February 11, 2025 at 9:45 AM
This is a very strong conclusion to make, particularly in the light of both the active retooling and the sustained YaRS-series production rates so far, deployment of novel NC3 and other infrastructure and so on.
8/9
8/9
This is in part true, ie for Avangard force where UR-100N UTTH boosters were re-used, as well as the UR-100N UTTH and R-36M2 life extension programs, but creates the impression that other weapon systems, ie YaRS, were also re-using old Soviet spare parts.
6/9
6/9
February 11, 2025 at 9:45 AM
This is in part true, ie for Avangard force where UR-100N UTTH boosters were re-used, as well as the UR-100N UTTH and R-36M2 life extension programs, but creates the impression that other weapon systems, ie YaRS, were also re-using old Soviet spare parts.
6/9
6/9
This is where false premise blooms into erroneous analysis, with the author missing ie the widely reported re-tooling (https://buff.ly/3ZhTAjF, https://buff.ly/3ZhTcld) for YaRS-M production, which in turn is a novel design with parallel RV deployment amongst other features.
5/9
5/9
February 11, 2025 at 9:45 AM
This is where false premise blooms into erroneous analysis, with the author missing ie the widely reported re-tooling (https://buff.ly/3ZhTAjF, https://buff.ly/3ZhTcld) for YaRS-M production, which in turn is a novel design with parallel RV deployment amongst other features.
5/9
5/9
If we apply the same criteria that Fabian has used ie for Sarmat to Sentinel then Sentinel would not be a novel design either.
Topol-M does not re-use Topol components (ie stages), moreover both Topol-M and YaRS are 5th generation missile complexes and not 4th generation.
3/9
Topol-M does not re-use Topol components (ie stages), moreover both Topol-M and YaRS are 5th generation missile complexes and not 4th generation.
3/9
February 11, 2025 at 9:45 AM
If we apply the same criteria that Fabian has used ie for Sarmat to Sentinel then Sentinel would not be a novel design either.
Topol-M does not re-use Topol components (ie stages), moreover both Topol-M and YaRS are 5th generation missile complexes and not 4th generation.
3/9
Topol-M does not re-use Topol components (ie stages), moreover both Topol-M and YaRS are 5th generation missile complexes and not 4th generation.
3/9
One would have hoped for a literature review here, with specifics on the Russian pit (and warhead in general) manufacturing industries, tritium generation.
There are papers written on this topic, but maybe the language barrier is an issue.
2/9
There are papers written on this topic, but maybe the language barrier is an issue.
2/9
February 11, 2025 at 9:45 AM
One would have hoped for a literature review here, with specifics on the Russian pit (and warhead in general) manufacturing industries, tritium generation.
There are papers written on this topic, but maybe the language barrier is an issue.
2/9
There are papers written on this topic, but maybe the language barrier is an issue.
2/9