iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 03/10/2025

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.

120

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 30/09/2025

So, is CENTCOM going to be the first to ever use nuclear armed ICBMs in a real armed conflict?

120

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 25/07/2025

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

110

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 25/07/2025

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

110

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 25/07/2025

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

110

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 25/07/2025

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

110

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 25/07/2025

So how would Soviet nuclear forces operate in the 1980s (say 1987)? 1/13

141

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 24/07/2025

Old ideas that are popular again :)

020

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 23/07/2025

So no overpressure hardening etc for the one near Offutt then?

110

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 22/07/2025

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.

100

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 21/07/2025

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).

130

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 15/07/2025

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.

120

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 15/07/2025

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?

141

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 25/06/2025

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?

120

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 23/06/2025

700m of hard rock and a good liner can make it fairly survivable.

110

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 23/06/2025

Central portion, a similar novel top structure (2020-2024). 4/6

120

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 23/06/2025

Eastern portion, a new helicopter pad (2020-2024). 3/6

120

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 23/06/2025

mt. Weather, western portion (2020-2024-2025), a possible new vertical shaft in the supporting area, looks like some excavated soil. 2/6

111

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 23/06/2025

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

211

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

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

120

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

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

120

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

This is where false premise blooms into erroneous analysis, with the author missing ie the widely reported re-tooling (buff.ly/3ZhTAjF, buff.ly/3ZhTcld) for YaRS-M production, which in turn is a novel design with parallel RV deployment amongst other features. 5/9

120

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

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

120

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

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

120

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

100

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

100

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

100

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

100

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

100

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

On this day today in 1963 the UR-100 weapon systems has been first suggested to be developed. On 30th of March Council of Minister decree ordered such development. 1/3

131

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 10/01/2025

Another quarter another Veteran Missileer magazine issue. It has many interesting bits, but mostly nichie ones, ie clarifying that the technical requirements for Rif radio link came from suggestions for improving Efir-M radio link. 1/3

151

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 09/01/2025

Early, pre-1976, design work for Minsk Metro. Courtesy of the bunker-703 team.

020

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 09/01/2025

On this day today, in 1984, USSR began working on Skorost BM. It was being developed using the Pioner and Pioner-3 experience, as well as Topol and early Universal work. Courtesy of dr.Kornev. 1/3

110

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 28/12/2024

Russian cruise missile attack on a Ukrainian power plant. Note terminal air defense and use of decoys by the missiles.

001

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 26/12/2024

A possible future Buk-M3 variant.

130

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 26/12/2024

A possible future Buk-M3 variant.

030

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 19/12/2024

If PRC is pursuing the LoW and DSS capabilities then infrastructure hardening is one way to get there. If PRC pursues super hardened NC3 nodes, similar to KK, then it could explain ie absence of a visible command plane program similar to the Russian or US one. 7/7

110

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 19/12/2024

Would be interesting to see those papers, compare and contrast ie with Russian practices. 6/7

110

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 19/12/2024

No silo based DF-41 yet, apparently. This appears to indicate that the TEL force is on rotating alert, while the silo force is on constant LoW alert, not dissimilar to Russia. 5/7

100

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 19/12/2024

If this claim is accurate then we should be able to see the evidence for this from IMINT, atleast we often do for ie similar Russian operations. Maybe some one with access to Planetlab imagery can corroborate this? 4/7

100

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 19/12/2024

50 heavy and 320 light silo based ICBMs is a considerable force and would mean a quasi parrity with Russia and US in this respect. Decision to expand the heavy ICBM force is a curious one. Seems like the same weapon system across all 3 fields. 3/7

100

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 19/12/2024

The report claims that the novel silo force is made out of CSS-10 and it appears to correspond to the DF-31 family of ICBMs, in the context, with DF-41 being named as CSS-20 and DF-31s called CSS-10 variants. 2/7

100

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 19/12/2024

Looking through the recent US report on Chinese military. Some interesting bits from my perspective: 1/7

113

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 17/12/2024

Karakaev confirms that the Topol-M replacement will begin next year, my estimate is that it would take about 4-5 years to complete, with 6 silo regiments (60 launchers) and 3 TEL regiments (18 launchers) being replaced, 78x1 ~800kt RVs replaced by 78x4 ~100kt RVs, depending on YaRS variant used.

052

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 14/12/2024

In terms of nichie but military useful missions it could be designed to deal with the European BMD (ie A-A sites) by using numerous inert submunitions and key soft targets, ie aircraft and INF-type launchers in the open, by using slower but smart submunitions. 2/3

120

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 14/12/2024

Regarding the Oreshnik BM. Currently it appears likely that it is derived from a system used to simulate the adversary (ie Trident-II) payloads in BMD testing, with complex trajectories, ie the ability to fly backwards then forwards. 1/3

160

Krakek @krakek.bsky.social · 12/12/2024

Proliferation of “AI” in appliances (particularly where it is not necessary ie toasters) is one of the reasons why I feel that we live in the WH40K universe. Praised be the Machine Spirit!

161