(09-24-2024, 03:07 PM)Mick Wrote: Genuinely makes me wonder about the quality of their nuclear weapons, particularly given the graft that seems endemic in the Soviet Russian military.
Unfortunately the quality of their weapons is reasonably good, most probably. The "new" weapons they have developed since the founding of the Russian Federation are somewhat unknown. The "old" stuff was well designed and unquestionably "worked". Russian nuclear weapons don't have the "shelf life" US ones do. They re manufacture them every 10 years or so. The SRF gets priority for the resources necessary to maintain their missiles. They are also considered an "elite" service and at least mostly do not suffer from the lack of expertise the rest of the Russian military does. Like many things Russian the system may not be efficient or streamlined, but it has a history of "working". They aren't re-engineering it. The US got some insight into the Russian's capability in the 90s. It was more than adequate then. Their weapons will explode. It is probable that there has been some "degradation" in the missiles themselves. However, more than enough of them will "work" just fine unfortunately. The solid-fuel boosters don't take much care and feeding. There are a few things that have to be replaced periodically but nothing that costs a lot or is hard to get.
The naval component of their "triad" is more of an unknown. Putin hates the Navy. The Russian "Boomers" are considered an elite force etc. etc. However, running a submarine is lots harder than "running" a missile silo. They may not be very "good" at it. However, if they launch, some of it will "work" most probably. The Russian navy "ran down" a lot, but unlike the rest of the navy the nuclear force received new submarines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borei-class_submarine These boats are much better and quieter than the boats they replace. However, they were built under the current regime, which makes one wonder what is really true. How much we "know" about their actual capabilities is well above my pay grade.
The VKS has the ability to deliver both nuclear ALCMs and free-fall gravity bombs. These units are a major threat to Europe. The number of platforms is limited, and nearly all of them are old. So is the B-52. The European nations don't maintain a high level of air defense. In the recent past, they felt they didn't need to. The assumption always has been that there will be plenty of warning and that something can be cobbled together. Most of the "cobbled together" air defense will say "USAF" on the fuselage. Fun facts.
https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php#google_vignette is "interesting". It does include helicopters though.
Of course, Russia has so many nuclear capable MRBMs that the VKS contribution to the triad really doesn't much matter. The conventionally armed MRBMs are working just fine in Ukraine, as are the conventional cruise missiles. Not all the time, but with a nuclear payload not that many need to work.
EDIT: Regarding the "newer" missiles
https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-satan-i...25250.html. It isn't all that unusual that a newly developed rocket doesn't work as desired. What surprises me greatly is that the rocket is liquid fueled. Yes, you can get more thrust per unit volume that way, but you have to manage the liquid fueled missiles. It can be done. The Titian II missile system did work. There were a few accidents but nothing "serious", fortunately. The Titian missiles sat in the silo fully loaded with fuel and oxidizer for "a long time". That allowed firing the missile within 60 seconds from the "go" order. Solid fuel missiles like the Trident D5 do this all the time with no associated drama. If the Russians are still building liquid fueled missiles, one might wonder why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava Gives some insight into missile development for the Russian navy.
