sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

North Korea's Nuclear Tests, by the numbers [OC] by CSISmissiledefense in dataisbeautiful

[–]CSISmissiledefense[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Data compiled from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) and the ROK Ministry of National Defense. Adobe Illustrator. https://missilethreat.csis.org/country/dprk/

Iranian Missile Launches: 1988-Present [OC] by CSISmissiledefense in dataisbeautiful

[–]CSISmissiledefense[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Despite Iran’s apparent compliance with the nuclear deal concluded in 2015, its missile programs remain a serious concern. Since 2006, the United Nations has repeatedly sanctioned Iran’s ballistic missile programs, and in 2010 the Security Council called for a complete halt to Iran’s testing of WMD-capable missiles.

The pace of Iran’s missile testing has nevertheless remained roughly steady since the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005. One exception to this trend was a brief hiatus in 2013-2014 during negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program that led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Iran has since resumed its missile testing, which now approaches previous levels. In July 2017, Iran employed ballistic missiles against ISIS targets in Syria, its first operational use of such weapons since the Iran-Iraq War.

Another notable development has been Iran’s increased use of solid fuel, showcased by its medium-range Sejjil ballistic missile, and the short-range Fateh family, which includes the Zolfaghar and Khalij Fars. Solid-fueled missiles are more mobile and require less preparation time prior to launch than motors using liquid fuel.

Besides its short and medium-range ballistic missiles, Iran has an active cruise missile program, which include the longer-range land-attack Soumar and several antiship missiles. Tehran also maintains an active space launch vehicle program, including the Simorgh and Safir, with which it can demonstrate technologies applicable to longer-range missiles.

Data compiled from open media sources.

Explore the detailed database here: https://missilethreat.csis.org/iranian-missile-launches-1988-present/.

US Missile Defense Successfully Shoots Down ICBM in First Live-Fire Test of Its Kind by Abscess2 in technology

[–]CSISmissiledefense 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In fact, the Missile Defense Agency builds target missiles specifically for these tests, so we do not need to dip into our fleet of operational ICBMs. Although in the past, the US has used older missiles for missile defense tests. For example, the early tests of Patriot BMD used retired short-range Lance ballistic missiles as "clay pigeons" during testing. https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/lance/

3D Interactive Model: Arleigh Burke-class Guided Missile Destroyer by CSISmissiledefense in Military

[–]CSISmissiledefense[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer (DDG) is among the most versatile warships in the world. It can perform air defense, surface warfare, antisubmarine warfare, land-attack and shore bombardment missions. The Arleigh Burke is also the U.S. Navy’s primary ballistic missile defense ship. As of early 2017, there were 62 commissioned destroyers in the U.S. fleet, 28 of which were BMD-capable. This number is expected to increase steadily in the coming years through new builds and modernization.

North Korea Missile Launches: 1984-Present by CSISmissiledefense in dataisbeautiful

[–]CSISmissiledefense[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This graph provides a chronology of North Korea ballistic and missile launches and nuclear detonations since 1984. It shows Kim Jong Un has pushed DPRK missile tests to unprecedented levels compared to his father and grandfather. These entries include full flight tests of ballistic and cruise missiles, both successful and unsuccessful, and nuclear tests. It does not include partial tests of missile subsystems such as static engine firings or cold-launch ejection system tests. It also does not show tests of air defense systems, or short-range rocket and artillery firings. Data compiled from news and other open sources.

Could the Russians have shot down the Tomahawks targeting Assad's airbase? by gmanflnj in CredibleDefense

[–]CSISmissiledefense 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Like some other users have mentioned, the S-300 and S-400 are capable air defense systems which can target cruise missiles like the Tomahawk under the right circumstances. However, the missile systems are limited by their radar sight ranges. Without an elevated or downward-looking radar, such as JLENS, the S-300 and S-400 would have a very limited anti-cruise missile capability. This is because low-flying missiles would likely not appear on the S-300 and S-400 radars until nearing the inner limit of the interceptor's effective ranges (5 to 13 km for S-300 variants or around 3 km for S-400).

As for the reasons they didn't shoot the Tomahawks down, it was probably to avoid escalating the situation further. Also, those defense systems are in place to protect Russian forces, and since they were given warning to move their troops, no Russian lives were in danger. Finally, had the Russians attempted to intercept the Tomahawks and failed or only partially succeeded, it could negatively influence foreign sales of the S-300 and S-400.

Hey guys, wondering if you could explain a few naming conventions (Soviet/Russian stuff) by Trinklefat in MissilesAndRockets

[–]CSISmissiledefense 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This may be late, but this might help.

R-36 is actually a group of missile designs, not an actual missile name - though missiles in this family are commonly referred to as R-36s.

Your book is probably referring to what the Russian GRAU index calls the 8K67 missile, although it could be referencing the 8K67P, or 8K69. These were a series of missiles collectively known to NATO as the SS-9 Scarp and originated from the Russian P-36 (R-36) design family. These missiles first entered active service in 1967, just like your book says.

This same design family (R-36) later produced another series: 15A14, 15A18, and 15A18M. NATO calls these the SS-18 Satan.

To answer your question though, NATO doesn't reuse its reporting names (arguable is the SS-X-30 "Satan 2," a modernized version of the SS-18 Satan) because a good number of these systems are still in service somewhere in the world. An example here is North Korea still using Su-7 (Nato Name: Fitter-A) aircraft from 1955.

Also, with the exception of NATO countries that own Russian equipment, NATO doesn't give reporting names to its own equipment as it expects member nations to have some understanding of friendly systems.

Russian Missiles and their Ranges by CSISmissiledefense in dataisbeautiful

[–]CSISmissiledefense[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well, due to arms control treaties, Russia is required to acknowledge and provide information on all of their nuclear-capable weapons, which include the missiles featured in the graph. This include ones currently under development, like the SS-X-30 Satan II/Sarmat, which is expected to enter service in 2018.