Talk:RS-24 Yars

Thermonuclear

How on Earth ballistic missile can be "thermonuclear"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Image

The image was that of Topol-M mobile TEL, so I deleted it.Profhobby 16:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Missile defence?

What makes this missile able to evade defences? 213.48.15.234 14:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

1. It is manuevering on the trajectory.

2. It's warheads are created using stealth technology.

3. It's boost phase is very small compared even to other solid fuel missiles.

4. It's warheads manuevere on intermeadiate phase and in terminal phase, and in intermediate phase they fly at hypersonic speeds, much faster than any other missile's warheads. And of course in terminal phase they are sflying like any otehr warheads, with speds of 10 times the sound or 13, I don't rememeber, in addition, trhey are manuevering.

It's speed in terminal phase is probably much higher (for example R-36 and minuteman have this speed roughly at 20-30 mach). Also freefalling warheads have initialy increase speed, then decrease as those enter dense amosphere. What matters is how fast can missile leave atmosphere, in mid*air* speeds are pretty high.

5. It is said to be protected against latest laser technology.

When a warhead is manuevering at high speeds, you can not determine where it is going, and hence you can not send an interceptor. Even if you would send an interceptor, where is the guarantee that warheads will not do evasive manuever around it, or that warheads will be in the place where you sent interceptor.

The missiles of this family: Topol M, Iskander, and now the newest RS-24 are unique, no other country has them.

And about photograph, unless someone will sneak in to russian secret domcuments, make a photo and post it here, we will not see the missile for a long time.

74.98.216.68 02:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Pavel Golikov. 10:52, 12 June 2007.

You should ask yourself: "what makes a warhead NOT being able to evade defences?". And the answer is "be predictable". Make the opponent know where exactly you will be in the next second -- so it can fire at that location and kill you when you arrive there next second. Then you will understand how to make yourself being able to defeat the opponent: be UNpredictable — so no matter where the opponent fires, you are not there. -- Wesha (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

When did the missile "land"?

If we know that we could determain the speed, very roughly :)

Only average speed across all three stages, which will not give any other information. --99.231.50.118 (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

It's a Topol-M??

According to russianforces.org it's almost certainly a modified Topol-M. 58.161.121.237 13:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A MIRVed Topol-M it is.

http://russianforces.org/blog/2007/09/solomonov_confirms_that_rs24_i.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.121.103 (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

http://gx.people.com.cn/media/200705/30/NewsMedia_55914.jpg (RS-24 image?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.150.140 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am from Russian Federation. I claim you to delete (remove) this article because it is top secret military informations (data). Sorry for my very bad English Language. 85.140.35.82 (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Russ_boy

Your "top secret" info is on Lenta.ru. --Fastboy (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtdCibNfbWI&feature=related

The person speaking is the main developer of this missile, Solomonov. Quote from video:

"If we are talking about how much this missile is changed compared to it's analog, Topol M, it is about half a missile new" He says it from 0:31 to 0:40.

So, I hope we are settled with questions about it being Topol m? 99.231.46.37 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Merge with Topol-M?

The missile has much in common with the normal Topol-M. Thus, much of the information about Topol-M is also valid for RS-24. Wouldn't it be a good idea to merge these two articles? Otherwise we will have to duplicate info. Offliner (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

RS-24 is simply a MIRVed version of Topol-M, so I don't know if it should be called a separate missile. We should merge these two articles -- RS-24 should be a subsection of Topol-M. Any objections? Offliner (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not simply MIRVed version. Technically RS-24 is neither a new missile, nor a modification yet. The START treaty describes a new missile as one which differs from its prototype (namely Topol-M) in any of these parameters: ammount of stages, type of fuel of any of the stages, launch weight (10%), length of a missile (10%), first stage diameter (5%), throw weight (21%). We still don't know whether there is difference between Topol-M and RS-24 in some of these. I suppose we should wait for either new START treaty or RS-24 passing into service.--Comiccar (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, now it's clear: RS-24 is designated as a new missile in the START.--Comiccar (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Rephrased references to missile shield which has since been abandoned.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB125317801774419047.html

66.112.225.187 (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Throw-weight? Article contradicts itself.

Are there any reliable sources/information as to what the actual throwweight of this contraption may be?

If the missile is, as has been stated, merely a *slightly* upgraded Topol-M, its throwweight of 1300-1400kg or so would be barely enough to support a *couple* of 550kt strategic warheads, nowhere near 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.74.250 (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd venture to guess that "throwweight" becomes just another tradeoff paramater for a maneuvering missile. That said, 5% more diameter (10%+ propelant), lighther structure, more efficient engine => +30%+ more raw value, +50% tops. Anything less and it would not be worth it changing 50% of the missile as cited. 85.163.209.191 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Where do we stuff info about the new secret missile?

According to this article there's a new missile undergoing launch test that is said to be "a successor to ICBMs like the Topol-M". Should there be some mention of it in the present article? __meco (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is land based Bulava according to http://kommersant.ru/doc/1941514 (24.05.2012, " фактически является наземным аналогом "Булавы". " = "in fact it is ground-based analogue of Bulava"; "масса порядка 36 т, длина (с головной частью) около 12 м, а также одинаковое количество ступеней." = "mass 36 ton, length including (war)head - around 12 m, same number of stages"). `a5b (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so the BBC doesn't know the difference between ground-based and naval-based surface-to-surface missiles. Is that an appropriate interpretation of the discrepancy? __meco (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

1) BBC's article is older; information about bulava is newer. 2) "a successor to ICBMs like the Topol-M" was written to describe picture; 3) BBC also can mean that new missile is next ground-based missile. 4) Other source says "Experts say that the missile combines all the know-how of Russia’s Topol M, Yars and Bulava missiles". So it is unclear now (will be kept top-secret for another half of year) what the missile really is. Anything that is published is rumors. PS: [1] says that it is not 'Ярс' (Yars) nor 'Авангард' (Avangard), referring to yellow-press Izvestia: [2]. `a5b (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

But my initial question remains unanswered: Should we perchance not include i trinket of this exciting rumor into our present article? __meco (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we need an article about (the main unofficial name seems to be Avangard). It has had two test flights already. According to experts, it should really be categorised as a new missile. Nanobear (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll just watch this spot then for the creation of that article by someone other than myself. __meco (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate warhead yield

Someone has currently changed the warhead yield to read '100 megatone'. Not only is this spelt wrong, but no weapon of that yield has ever been produced, even going up to H-bombs weighing several tons. I don't claim to know what the yield will be (6x550kT sounds sensible), but 100 megatons is definitely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Mach values

The Mach values are useless without further specifications.

There is no medium in space, which carrys sound. --94.114.40.212 (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on RS-24 Yars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930210043/http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=152349&version=1&template_id=39&parent_id=21 to http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=152349&version=1&template_id=39&parent_id=21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091230224909/http://rt.com/Top_News/2008-11-26/New_missile_can_beat_any_defence_system.html to http://rt.com/Top_News/2008-11-26/New_missile_can_beat_any_defence_system.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)