Talk:RT-2PM2 Topol-M/Archive 1

2008 May Parade
Comment of little interest: Iirc these will feature in the 9 May parade in Red Square this year. 118.90.43.228 (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent
one of the most recent intercontinental ballistic missiles to be deployed by Russia (see RS-24),

As of when? 2008? Mallerd (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Old discussion
I'm not going to lie to you. This entry, as it was created, is plain ole' ugly. I'll improve it when I get more time, but for now, it'll have to stay ugly. I kinda doubt anyone's gonna see it between now and when I improve it, so no loss... --Oceanhahn 09:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You people need to realise and cease denying that Russia has signed, has ratified, and is legally bound by, the NPT, which treaty obliges it to disarm itself. That is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.223.181 (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

True. Russia does not abide by NPT. This is also fact. 67.162.15.64 (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw it ;) But that's cuz Russia just test-launched one on 12/24. Supposedly, it went 6000KM in 25 minutes and scored a bullseye on it's target. 206.156.242.39 21:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Various crackpot websites (http://www.rense.com/general69/tiddosdzdd27makes.htm) make the (as yet unsubstantiated) claim that the Topol-M has a top speed of 10800 miles per hour, which would make it the fastest missile in the world.—Anty 15:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. This missile goes Mach 14. Our Trident II SLBM goes Mach 23. 67.162.15.64 (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RT-2UTTH Topol-M SS-27 Video added :P .—203.59.167.177 19:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This article does not state warhead yield. Anybody know? --Commking 01:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough to wipe out New York City


 * According to http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=ma06norris, the Topol-M carries a 550 kiloton warhead. The M1 is unknown. PolarisSLBM 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Some sources state it at the possibility of deploying three warheads, or one, but 1.2 Mt yield. Pavel. 8:07 May 03 2007.


 * I don’t know how reliable the following article is but it says that Topol SS 27 is the fastest missile ever with a speed of over 10,000 miles per hour! http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4057 By the way, if it is the fastest missile then I take it that no anti-missile system can catch it or hit it, right? Any idea where I can buy a few? Kiumars


 * Wrong. The ability of an anti-missile system to intercept a particular missile is not solely defined by the speed of its targets. The AM interceptor has no need to chaise the target by following it, hence, the speed of the target missile defines mostly the time to response available for the AM system. --jno 07:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding missile speed: Trident going at Mach 23? any evidence of that? NO? just a I expected. In any case, astronomical numbers like MAch 14 or Mach 20 are given for reentry stage, that much is obvious. But if you consider reentry stage, then it is not really a missile that is flying, but only warhead. In this case, the fastest warhead is that of SS-18 Satan, simply because it throws its warheads higher into the space (heavier missile). As for the missile itself, Topol M might be the fastest, but then again it might not, because we don't know its thrust at various stages. SO, instead of giving astronomical numbers for speed of missile (MAch 23, MAch 15), I advise people to read on the subject and not troll around saying "Our trident is going Mach 23". At what stage? Takeoff?99.231.50.118 (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Merge with RS-24?
Please see this discussion:. Offliner (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ballistics
this missile can not be intercepted at this time and for some time in future NOT because of speed. The missile manuevres, hence you do not know where it will be at future points in time or where it is flying, hence you can not target it in general.

Topol M does NOT follow ballistic trajectory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.218.153 (talk • contribs)

If it constantly maneuvers and engages in evasive maneuvers and it goes so fast, I'm really amazed it has the range it does, as it would seem to require enormous quantities of fuel in excess of what I would presume it would carry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.200.5.41 (talk • contribs) - That is why it's yield is not as big compared to non-manuevering missiles of it's weight class. Pavel 8:03 May 02 2007.


 * AFAIK, Topol M follow ballistics on the second (passive) stage after the deployment of strike formation. Then, they are just like falling bombs, the warheads cones turned backwords. All maneuvers finish themselves upon the end of the first part. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 06:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, That is how normal ballistic trajectory follows, missile is launched, then it does a series of maneverse and gets to designated points, from each of which it launches each warhead. The difference of Topol M is that warheads themselves fly at hypersonic speed and manuevre during all phases. That is why at weight of 46 tons it's yield is comparatively small (side engines that allow the manuevres and fuel for them take some portion of weight that would be otherwise converted in to yield). Here is a source:

"The Russian military claim that the manoeuvre performed by the warhead during the re-entry phase of its flight will not allow its interception and destruction by the existing missile defence systems,"

http://www.hindu.com/2005/11/04/stories/2005110402451700.htm I can post much more sources if this is not enough. Missile manuevres during all stages (although at terinal and intermediate stages it is warheads that manoeuvre). Pavel. 8:03 03 May 2007.

The claims made regarding the "hypersonic manoeuvring warheads" have not been verified by any independent sources. At hypersonic velocities a vehicle is not so much manouevring as making very gentle turns which an interceptor could easily counter. Radical maneouvres would result in the disintegration of the vehicle. Additionally, the weight of fuel, engines and guidance system would almost certainly reduce the missile to a single warhead, due to the limitations on throw-weight of the Topol ICBM. More maneouvres imply greater potential for INS errors. A final point is that BMD is not intended to stop a massed Russian or Chinese ICBM strike, as it would certainly fail in its current guise and scale. It does, however, provide an insurance policy against "rogue" ICBM states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.44.89 (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Naval variant fails test
Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * December 11, 2009, UFO frenzy was Russian missile failure, Yahoo!7 News

Shielded against nuclear blast?
"It is shielded against radiation, EMP, nuclear explosions at distances over 500 meters, and is designed to survive a hit from any laser technology" - How realistic is that? IMHO even 20kT nuclear explosion at distance of 500 mts will cause this missile to evaporate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.138.124 (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably 500m from the outer limit of the primary fireball. 70.83.220.148 (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsupportive Link
The link given for the sentence "These claims however have been doubted by various experts and observers in that field" is not supportive of the sentence, as far as it goes is mention the failures of the related Bulava missile but does not doubt the defensive capabilities, as such I'm removing the sentence until a source which does support this claim arises. 86.134.227.155 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Call of Duty 4
Should I go ahead and add a note that they were featured in Call of Duty 4?
 * NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO Final revenge (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2011 (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)


 * Discussion here: Talk:RS-24 Yars __meco (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The body of the rocket is made by winding carbon fiber. AND WHY
is not there is only official sources of media sources, but a body of plastic did not appear for a joke. target = 100% resistance to lasers and infrared rays, the rocket was not consumed. maybe in 30 years it will be officially89.105.158.243 (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on RT-2PM2 Topol-M. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100305060750/http://www.janes.com:80/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0463.html to http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0463.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100305060750/http://www.janes.com:80/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0463.html to http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0463.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111003093859/http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=65371&cid=25 to http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=65371&cid=25

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on RT-2PM2 Topol-M. 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/20121230165047/http://www.mputtre.com/id19.html to http://www.mputtre.com/id19.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Warhead
There are differences inside the article about the warhead. What is correct: 800kt or 1Mt? The Russian version talks about 1 Mt warhead, but with option for 3 - 6 warheads of 500 kt or 150 kt. The German version tals about a MARV warhead of 550 kt, maybe the old 800 kt warhead of former Topol missile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2k11m1 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.org also states yield as 550kt. Source I did a googles and was unable to verify the one megaton yield. DerGolgo (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)