Talk:Strategic Rocket Forces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Strategic fleet"[edit]

What could it be? There are only RPKSNs (Russian: РПКСН - ракетный подводный крейсер стратегического назначения) - strategic cruiser-class missile-carrying submarines. They nevere were separated as "fleet". More over, there are Baltic (KBF), North (SF), Black Sea (ChF), and Pacific Ocean (TOF) fleets. And no more. --jno 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AVN July 13, 2007[edit]

Tatishchevo division to have 48 Topol-M system in 2007

MOSCOW. July 13 (Interfax-AVN) - The Tatishchevo Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) Division will have been equipped with 48 Topol-M silo-based missile systems by the turn of 2007, the SMF Public Information Service told Interfax-AVN on Friday.

"At the moment five regiments of the Tatishchevo Division have already been equipped with Topol-Ms. Four more silo-based systems are to be fielded by the turn of the year," it said.

Thus, the division will have been armed with 48 Topol-M silo-based launchers by the turn of 2007.

Silo-based Topol-Ms have been fielded with the Tatishchevo Division since 1997. Topol-M systems are expected to constitute the back bone of the SMF when RS-12M Topol, RS-18 Stilet, and RS-20 Voevoda ICBMs are scrapped. At the present time the Russian SMF operate about 500 ICBMs.

The Topol-M missile has a launch weight of 47.2 tons, a warhead of 1,200 kg, and a range of over 10,000 km. Several dozen auxiliary power plants and guidance hardware ensure a totally unpredictable flight trajectory.

    • Ends**

Transliteration/pronunciation[edit]

Is "стратегического" really pronounced "strategicheskogo"? Or is it more like "strategicheskovo"? Sushi Tax 00:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC) The correct spoken Russian is "strategicheskovo" Alex Karasev —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Aviation squadrons of SRF[edit]

  • 349-й оаэ - Ермолино (Москва) - на 2002 г в ней было 5 Ан-72 и 3 Ан-26 - обслуживание ГК РВСН
  • Ракетные армии:
    • 27-я РА (Владимир) - 98-я осаэ
    • 31-я РА (Оренбург) - 102-я осаэ
    • 33-я РА (Омск) - 105-я осаэ
  • Ракетные дивизии:
    • 7-я рд (Озерный/Выползово) - ? овэ
    • 8-я рд (Первомайский/Юрья) - 224-я овэ
    • 13-я рд (Ясный/Домбровский) - 84 овэ
    • 14-я рд (Йошкар-Ола) - 108-я овэ
    • 23-я рд (Канск-15) - 261-я овэ
    • 28-я рд (Козельск) - ? овэ
    • 35-я рд (Сибирский/Барнаул) - 37-я овэ
    • 39-я рд (Гвардейский/Новосибирск) - ? овэ
    • 42-я рд (Свободный) - 225-я овэ
    • 51-я рд (Зеленый) - ? овэ
    • 54-я рд (Красные Сосенки/Тейково) - ? овэ
    • 59-я рд (Локомотивный/Карталы) - ? овэ (дивизия расфомирована)
    • 60-я рд (Светлый/Татищево) - ? овэ
    • 62-я рд (Солнечный/Ужур) - ? овэ
  • ? рд (Василёк/Кострома) - ? овэ [это 10-я гврд, ныне разгоняемая - Е.]
  • Полигон Капустин Яр - 158-й осап
  • Полигон Ключи (Камчатка) - 84-й осап (ловля ракет, запускаемых на Камчатку)

Copyright violation[edit]

This page appears to be largely copied from http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/agency/rvsn.htm, and in accordance with the instructions at WP:Copyvio, I am posting this talk notice. If there are no comments within a reasonable amount of time, I intend to start removing the copyrighted material. Update: I will revert to the earliest version without mass copying from the FAS page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_Rocket_Forces&oldid=34214109. Buckshot06(prof) 10:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MRBMs?[edit]

Weapons used[edit]

Why is the section entitled "weapons used"? I don't recall any ICBMs getting "used"...

Weapons Used[edit]

Why is the section entitled "weapons used"? I don't recall any ICBMs getting "used"...Smallman12q (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet non-Slavs were generally barred ... because of suspicions of loyalty[edit]

According to a 1980 TIME Magazine article citing analysts from RAND Corporation, Soviet non-Slavs were generally barred from joining the Strategic Rocket Forces because of suspicions of loyalty of ethnic minorities to the Kremlin.[7]

Guessing aside whether this article was motivated by propaganda or simple misunderstanding / lack of context on behalf of the reporter, my father, who at the height of his career commanded a quad of silos, says that it is simply not the case. He had several people under his command from the "southern republics", including one from Chechnya. What is true however, and perhaps sheds light on where TIME may have gotten their impression, is that excellent command of spoken and written Russian was a prerequisite for having anything to do with the nukes. Many Soviet folks with non-Slavic backgrounds spoke Russian with thick accents, and/or slowly. I do not think I want to contemplate the consequences that a misinterpreted or mispronounced command could have had during a stressful or time-pressured RVSN exercise or a real emergency, and I sincerely hope, for everyone's sake, that NATO nuclear forces likewise demand good knowledge of English from their troops in the same line of service. Sometimes the reality is simpler and less sinister than what propaganda or cold war inertia would have one guess. Alex.K.NY —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Well quite. Secretlondon (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RS-24s[edit]

They are still through test as far as open sources stated...SO - why the claim about 3 missiles on duty? What the source —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussianTrooper (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not see the footnote above the list (1)? It's about the most accurate source there is - Pavel Podvig. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't include Russian SSBNs?[edit]

So in related articles US Strategic Commmand isn't really related since Stratcom deals with the whole Triad. SRF only deals with the land based missiles.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The references are a bit of a mess. Lots of bare links and no citation templates. I would love to move this article to list defined references as it makes it much easier to edit. This would take all the references and templates and stick them at the end of the article out of the way. We could find them all easier and correct them as appropriate. It would make it easier to reuse references too. Can I get agreement to do this? Secretlondon (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Strategic Missile Troops. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Strategic Missile Troops. 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:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media[edit]

Requested move 25 April 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved - No actual oppose !votes at this point and some agreement with the nom, who has provided evidence that the new title passes WP:COMMONNAME. Splitting the article will require a new discussion.(non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Strategic Missile Forces → Strategic Rocket Forces – Per WP:COMMONNAME, strategic rocket forces seems much more prevalent than strategic missile forces (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Strategic+missile+forces%2Cstrategic+rocket+forces&year_start=1960&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true), as well as in a number of other WP:RS Garuda28 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, since the subject belonged to one state for 32 years then another for 30. How about Strategic Rocket Forces of the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation, or Strategic Rocket Forces of the USSR and the RF? —Michael Z. 13:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mzajac: To clarify, do you support the change to Strategic Rocket Forces per WPCOMMONNAME, but oppose the Russian modifier? I suppose in that case we could drop the modifier and just change it to Strategic Rocket Forces – that would leave the same format as is now? Garuda28 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Support Sounds fine. —Michael Z. 15:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral about missile or rocket, but oppose adding "Russian", as that's not how we title things. Although "(Russian Federation)" would be acceptable as a disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Necrothesp: I think we’ve so far settled on not including Russian, but I’d like to better understand your rational, since we have Russian Armed Forces, Ground Forces, Aerospace Forces, etc.? Garuda28 (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is conventional to include a nationality for armies, navies, air forces and armed forces, but not for specific branches other than these. This is usually included in brackets if necessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The subject of this article has belonged to two states, one of which represented, conservatively speaking, fifteen nationalities. “Russian Federation” is inappropriate. —Michael Z. 08:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given that there is no opposition to Strategic Rocket Forces (but keeping out any national modifiers) I'm gong to go ahead and move the page. Garuda28 (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually it seems that since I started this discussion I'm not permitted to close it.Garuda28 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • True. It needs splitting into two separate articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strategic_Rocket_Forces&oldid=1208423991"