Military Review

News about the modernization of the missile R-30 "Bulava"

90
New details of the planned development of strategic nuclear forces have become known. The development of nuclear delivery systems continues. weapons, for which purpose this time it is proposed to modernize one of the recently adopted models. According to the latest domestic media reports, an updated version of the P-30 “Bulava” ballistic missile should appear in the foreseeable future, differing from the basic version by a significant increase in the main characteristics.


Assumptions about the possible modernization of the newest domestic ballistic missile of submarines appeared earlier, but this time the press revealed possible technical features of the future weapon upgrade. 23 January has published an online edition of Lenta.ru. From an unnamed source in the domestic defense industry, journalists from the news portal managed to get certain information about current plans to modernize missiles.

According to Lenti.ru, the main requirements for the new project concern an increase in the flight range and payload mass. To solve both such problems, it will be necessary to revise the body of the product. As a result, the upgraded Bulava will be larger and heavier than the base-level rocket. The D-30 missile system has a certain potential for fulfilling such requirements. In particular, the question of some changes in the architecture of the complex in order to increase the space available to accommodate the missiles is being considered.



The source "Lenti.ru" noted that the possibility of increasing the rocket without the need to process the submarine carrier can be realized by refusing to use the transport and launch container. In the existing complex, the rocket is transported in a special container, which occupies part of the volume of the silo launcher. The rejection of this product, in turn, will increase the size of the available mine.

Increasing the size of the rocket will allow an appropriate increase in the charges of solid fuel of its engines. Changes in the energy performance of the product will provide an opportunity to increase the flight range to 12 thousand. Km. At the same time, the payload of the upgraded Bulava will be more than twice as high as the corresponding parameter of the base rocket.

"Lenta.ru," referring to its source, writes that the upgraded version of the D-30 missile system in the future may become the main weapon of promising submarine cruisers. At the end of the twenties, the construction and development of strategic design submarines could begin, the main task of which will be the replacement of obsolete ships. In particular, these submarines will be able to replace the boats of the project 667BRDM, which by then due to moral and physical obsolescence will have to lose their potential.

Recall the strategic missile system D-30 with a ballistic missile R-30 "Bulava" was developed since the late nineties and was intended to upgrade the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces. Submarines of the Borey 955 project were considered as a carrier of promising missiles. Since the middle of the last decade, a new type of rocket has been used in tests conducted with the help of the modernized Dmitry Tn-208 submarine Dmitry Donskoy. After a significant number of test launches, the D-30 rocket complex with the P-30 rocket was put into service. Currently, mass production of missiles is underway and the construction of their carriers continues.

According to known data, the P-30 product has a length of about 12 m with a maximum diameter of 2 m. The launch mass is at the level of 38,6 t. The rocket is built according to a three-stage scheme and is equipped with solid propellant engines. The drop weight is determined at the level of 1,15 t, which allows you to install on the head of up to ten warheads and means of overcoming missile defense. Flight range, according to available information, exceeds 8 thousand. Km.

The regular carriers of the D-30 missile system are the submarines of the Borey projects. To date, the domestic shipbuilding industry has built and transferred the fleet three ships of the basic project 955. The construction of five more submarines of the modernized project 955A is ongoing. The last ceremony of laying the submarine of the Borey type was held at the end of December last year. This year, one of the Boreev-A, which is planned to be transferred to the fleet in 2018, will be launched. A series of submarines under construction will be completely delivered to the customer no later than the beginning of the next decade.

The D-30 missile system with the Bulava missile was put into service about three years ago, but according to some information, improvements to its various components are still ongoing. In addition, it is planned to create a modernized complex, characterized by higher technical and combat characteristics. The possibility of creating an improved version of the P-30 rocket was discussed earlier, even before the completion of work on the base product, but only now some information about the goals and objectives of such a project has been freely available.

It should be noted that the emergence of requirements for increasing the flight range and the weight to be dropped should have been expected earlier. From the moment of publication of the first characteristics of the future rocket, the Bulava project was subjected to criticism, the main reasons for which was precisely the insufficient level of such characteristics. The use of solid fuel engines in combination with limitations on dimensions has led to a noticeable lag in the main characteristics of other domestic weapons of similar purpose. At the same time, it should be noted that, for example, the P-29RMU2 “Sineva” rocket, capable of flying to 11,5 thousand km, differs from P-30 in more length (14,8 m against 12 m) and a different starting mass (40 t against 38 t).

According to the latest data, the upgraded “Bulava” will have to get higher performance due to the upward processing of the structure. It is known that the P-30 rocket in the existing configuration is supplied in a transport-launch container with a length of more than 12 m and a diameter of more than 2 m. Such a product is installed in the shaft of the submarine carrier and acts as a launcher. It is obvious that the rejection of the TPK will increase the size of the rocket itself without the need to rework the launch shaft installed on the submarine. This, in turn, will provide less complex upgrading of the carrier, as well as increase the internal volumes of the rocket, allowing them to accommodate all the necessary equipment.

Nevertheless, it can be assumed that such a modernization of the D-30 complex will not be a simple task for the designers. Starting a missile from a launch shaft without a transport and launch container will require the most serious reworking of existing units of the submarine carrier, providing the required strength and performance characteristics. At the same time, due to the desire to preserve the overall dimensions of the complex as a whole, the project will face noticeable restrictions.

The need to create an enlarged rocket with new launching principles, as well as a launcher of a different design actually leads to a completely new project. Indeed, such a missile system, actively using components and assemblies of the existing one, will be a direct development of the serial D-30, but at the same time it can be considered a completely new development. In addition, the complexity of creating such a project may lead to the corresponding costs of time, effort and money.

It should be noted that the source "Lenta.ru" noted the rejection of the TPC as a considered option for the future modernization of the missile system. This may mean that the development of the Bulava project can be carried out in other ways. Some of them allow you to increase performance without changing the dimensions of the products. In particular, for this purpose, solid fuel engines with higher thrust parameters, more advanced controls, etc. can be used. With the successful modernization of the rocket according to this method, it will be possible to do without a major update of the carriers, which, in particular, will ensure the compatibility of improved missiles and existing or under construction carriers.

It is necessary to consider that the last news about the possible modernization of the D-30 submarine missile system with the R-30 “Bulava” missile with a certain reliability can only speak about the very existence of plans for upgrading submarine weapons. Only fragmentary information about the methods and methods of upgrading equipment is given, and in addition, the ways of development of the complex are indicated as considered by specialists. Thus, as the modernization project develops, current news may lose its relevance due to changes in approaches and methods.

However, recent posts reveal another important question. They show that the defense industry and the military department, having created a new model of strategic weapons, do not intend to stop there. It is planned to continue work in the field of submarine missile systems, resulting in an improved version of the Bulava missile in the foreseeable future. Most of the details of the new project, as well as the timing of its implementation are not yet specified. However, even in the conditions of such a shortage of information, it is clear that the development of strategic nuclear forces will continue.


On the materials of the sites:
https://lenta.ru/
http://rg.ru/
http://svpressa.ru/
http://tass.ru/
Author:
Photos used:
MO RF
90 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. PSih2097
    PSih2097 26 January 2017 08: 59
    +4
    Damn, what kind of modernization, first bring to mind the basic project so that the rocket flies normally, otherwise we will catch up and overtake the Makeyevtsy, and only then we need to think about improving performance.
    1. Großer feldherr
      Großer feldherr 26 January 2017 10: 44
      +4
      Most launches are successful, which means that the problem is not in the rocket and construction, but in the quality of production.
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 26 January 2017 11: 10
      +1
      Quote: PSih2097
      Damn, what a modernization, first bring to mind the basic project

      That's how it is brought to mind. The question is whether they will bring it.
      why this time it is proposed to modernize one of the recently adopted weapons models.

      Expectedly, watching as a boiled mace flies. But the increase in warheads and in general the size of ICBMs is slightly annoying. Yes, there is a bit of space in the PU, but can the Mace be upgraded to fit into these dimensions?
      The timing is important. When will they bring it and when will they test it? Indeed, now, in fact, our Boreas are “toothless” furrowing the seas and oceans. And 5 more Boreev-As were laid.
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 26 January 2017 12: 24
        +6
        Quote: NEXUS
        , Boreas are our "toothless" furrows of the seas and oceans. And then another 5 Boreev-A are laid.

        They are not “toothless”. Missiles are available. Another thing is that in ten years .... they will require major repairs in a dry dock. And by this time a new missile system is being prepared.
        TPK is an anachronism inherited from liquid fuel missiles. It is logical to get rid of it.
        But still, the main problem of our missiles is the low quality of solid fuels. There are a lot of problems. This is the lack of pure raw materials (the Baikal Pulp and Paper Mill closed under pressure from environmentalists (Americans)), the loss of Soviet technology (the Pavlograd Chemical Plant remained in Ukraine), and in general our general lag.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 26 January 2017 18: 22
          +2
          Quote: ism_ek
          They are not “toothless”. Missiles are available.

          The presence of missiles does not mean that they can be properly used. Take an interest in the percentage of successful and unsuccessful Mace launches ... about 50 to 50. Do you think this percentage is good for the state’s nuclear shield?
          Quote: ism_ek
          But still, the main problem of our missiles is the low quality of solid fuels.

          Well, yes ... I don’t even understand how this Yars with Topol fly ... wassat As the ICBM Rubezh (Vanguard) was generally lifted into the air ... well, it’s such a plug with solid fuel. lol
          1. ism_ek
            ism_ek 27 January 2017 08: 35
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            Well, yes ... I don’t even understand how Yars with Topol fly.

        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 27 January 2017 01: 08
          +2
          Quote: ism_ek
          TPK is an anachronism inherited from liquid fuel missiles. It is logical to get rid of it.
          TPK is the brand name of Almaz-Antey. On SAM - I remember. On SLBM liquid, sinful, I do not remember ...
          In the previous thread, Rudolph correctly wrote that TPK is a microclimate, which is very important for solid propellant rocket engines. But I can hardly imagine how to maintain it for solid-fuel SLBMs in a silo glass, where there are hatches and other technological holes.
          1. ism_ek
            ism_ek 27 January 2017 08: 41
            0
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            But I can hardly imagine how to maintain it for solid-fuel SLBMs in a silo glass, where there are hatches and other technological holes.

            But the Americans are. They have no TPK
            1. Berkut24
              Berkut24 31 January 2017 12: 36
              0
              Yes, here just such a rocket from the British off the coast of the United States and did not fly as expected ...
          2. Dzafdet
            Dzafdet 2 March 2017 04: 42
            0
            Quote: BoA KAA
            Quote: ism_ek
            TPK is an anachronism inherited from liquid fuel missiles. It is logical to get rid of it.
            TPK is the brand name of Almaz-Antey. On SAM - I remember. On SLBM liquid, sinful, I do not remember ...
            In the previous thread, Rudolph correctly wrote that TPK is a microclimate, which is very important for solid propellant rocket engines. But I can hardly imagine how to maintain it for solid-fuel SLBMs in a silo glass, where there are hatches and other technological holes.

            This problem was solved even when they made the R-39 .... That's just a pity for the 16 lost years, the BARK would have flown long ago ...
            1. NordOst16
              NordOst16 31 May 2017 13: 00
              0
              The bark was a 70-80 ton colossus, I think it would have to be designed more for it and apl
          3. Andrey NM
            Andrey NM 16 March 2017 12: 20
            +1
            On our rocket engine there is no TPK. Storage conditions for temperature and humidity are quite acceptable and do not present difficulties. For transportation, there are appropriate transport systems that include temperature control and gas analysis. Transporting, reloading and loading the same Blue is not a problem. There were certain subtleties in products for "azuhs", "beeches" and BDRs, but so, little things. Do everything carefully, without haste, and everything will be fine. All accidents at loading and unloading are the result of illiterate actions by personnel. As an example, many years ago the product was “torn” when unloaded to the SF, but there the personnel were simply driven in, and the officer responsible for certain operations simply did not disconnect the locking devices due to elementary fatigue. In the mine itself a decent number of hatches for various purposes.
        3. rubin6286
          rubin6286 10 February 2017 13: 43
          0
          TPK is not an anachronism. Its appearance was associated with the adoption of the Strategic Missile Forces arsenal of ammunized rockets with LRE on aggressive fuel components, which reduced the time to prepare for launch from constant combat readiness. For comparison: the regiment launched the first 8K67 unamplified mine rocket out of constant combat readiness 23 minutes after the KP received an appropriate signal through combat control and communication systems, and the 8K84 ampouled after 2 minutes 18 seconds. Catch the difference? As long as the mine missile systems of heavy missiles with LRE are in service, TPK is indispensable. As for ballistic missiles with solid propellant rocket engines, I suggest you independently comprehend what the TPK is for? What kind of loads does the solid propellant charge experience during its operation in parts and is it possible to do without it?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. AUL
        AUL 26 January 2017 14: 48
        +2
        In fact, this is not about upgrading the Mace, but about creating another machine. The fact that the start method has changed - already says that this is a new development. And the range increased, and the PN doubled ... It turns out that the old Bulava was already desperate to bring to mind, it turned out to be easier to build a new rocket. And what is the name old - remember Tu22 and Tu22m.
  2. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 26 January 2017 09: 39
    +1
    In principle, it is still good now, due to the quasi-ballistic flight path, with a further option with hypersonic blocks. Most likely, they will still settle on an option with improved parameters of the fuel mixture and a new control unit, it will come out cheaper. And for the STR, in general, is also a plus, say, accelerators, aviation, strategic and tactical missiles.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 26 January 2017 11: 13
      +5
      Quote: kugelblitz
      In principle, she’s not bad now,

      No, it’s just bad ... you don’t seem to be at all embarrassed that only the new ICBMs have been adopted and they are already modernizing. So something was wrong with this ICBM.
      Solomonov got into the marine theme, here is the result. And now all this, because of his desire to swallow more than he could. And then we are talking about the nuclear shield of the state.
      1. adept666
        adept666 26 January 2017 14: 12
        +4
        Solomonov got into the marine theme, here is the result.

        He leaked right through all the cracks))) They gave a command - he took a project from which he himself was not enthusiastic about what he had repeatedly said publicly. The Makeyevites were good at making rockets with liquid fuel, but they were very good at making rockets with solid fuel (look at the mass-dimensional characteristics of Bark). Moreover, for this rocket, fuel was already manufactured abroad in fact. And the fleet needed a small-sized ICBM with a solid-fuel engine, and we only knew how to do such at MIT.
        And now all this, because of his desire to swallow more than he could.

        The question to whom was this rocket to be taken at the very top and nothing depended on his desire, can these journalistic-liberal stories be enough to drag from topic to topic?
        And then we are talking about the nuclear shield of the state.
        That is why the one who was the best in the country was able to make liquid ICBMs and was entrusted with the most important project, and this is far from Mace. And now open Wikipedia or something and see who makes the RS-28, I hope there is no need to explain why?
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 26 January 2017 18: 17
          +3
          Quote: adept666
          The Makeyevites were good at making rockets with liquid fuel, but they were very good at making rockets with solid fuel (look at the mass-dimensional characteristics of Bark)

          What nonsense? Bark was almost ready and carried three times as many warheads as the Bulava, and this rocket was built for the Boreans too.
          Besides, where did you get the idea that a solid-fuel ICBM is certainly better than a liquid? Tie up to read Wikipedia, dear. A simple example is Sinev’s ICBM. It flies further, in itself is more reliable and in its class is the best in the world. And there is also the Sinev-2 project, which provides for a dry launch of a rocket.
          The question to whom was this rocket to be taken at the very top and nothing depended on his desire, can these journalistic-liberal stories be enough to drag from topic to topic?


          It’s just that our MO, at the time of Bark’s tests, really wanted the abandoned warhead weight to be about three tons. Would reduce the application to 2 tons, there would be no Mace. So stop writing nonsense about Bark here.

          Quote: adept666
          And now open Wikipedia or something and see who makes the RS-28, I hope there is no need to explain why?

          So what? Doesn’t it bother you that Sarmat is a silo-based ICBM weighing under 200 tons, no? And to compare the development of Sarmatia and sea-based ICBMs, to put it mildly, is it incorrect?
          I repeat, tie up to refer to Vika, in which you blunders, mistakes and outright misinformation at least backwards.
          1. adept666
            adept666 27 January 2017 14: 48
            +2
            What nonsense? Bark was almost ready and carried three times as many warheads as the Bulava, and this rocket was built for the Boreans too.
            This nonsense is not mine, but the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, several interdepartmental commissions and a pair of ministers approved by the Military Technical Council of the Russian Defense Ministry - that’s all I can say on this issue. Well, you certainly know better the sofa analyte as it should have been)))
            Besides, where did you get the idea that a solid-fuel ICBM is certainly better than a liquid?
            For any mobile platform (including nuclear submarines), a solid-propellant missile is better from the point of view of storage / transportation / preparation for launch safety, as well as in terms of carrier and crew requirements. The probability that you have to shoot back is around 0, but you have to go to military campaigns quite often, and the presence of several hundred tons of poisonous fuel at your side, in addition to nuclear fuel, somehow doesn’t really warm your soul, you know.
            A simple example is Sinev’s ICBM. It flies further, in itself is more reliable and in its class is the best in the world.
            More reliable than what? Its scheme was worked out on another rocket in which the number of failed launches is slightly less than that of the Bulava. And that in turn is the result of previous research. That's when the third modification will appear on the basis of the Mace, it will be possible to discuss. The problems of the Mace are not the problem of MIT, and not even the problem of our Moscow Region, which wants the ala Tradent rocket (and wants it quite a while ago from the times of the USSR and it is justified IMHO - experience however), but that we have a weak school in solid fuel mixtures and so far we we cannot restore the culture of design and production equal to the USSR.
            It’s just that our MO, at the time of Bark’s tests, really wanted the abandoned warhead weight to be about three tons. Would reduce the application to 2 tons, there would be no Mace. So stop writing nonsense about Bark here.
            These are your fabrications, which are not based on anything. If Bark was rejected, then there were political / economic / technical / objective reasons for this.
            e. The missile did not meet the requirements of the time and the capabilities of our budget. Redesigning a 3-stage carrier to a new payload (with a change in mass-dimensional characteristics) is more difficult than making it from 0 (I tell you this as a design engineer smile ) In addition, 2 large projects of Makeyevtsy would not have pulled, and on the one hand, this would greatly slow down the work in the direction where we needed a good backlog of blood from the nose, and on the other, the marine theme would have stalled even more. And do not make enemies out of these 2 KB. The Makeyevtsi did a good job of helping MIT in terms of KBSK. So there was close cooperation.
            So what?
            Well, how else can I tell you already? smile Now we have the basis of the Strategic Missile Forces - it is Voevoda (she is Satan, she is SS-18 and she is P36M), but there is no replacement for her, because they did it and developed it in another country. And it so happened that in addition to comrades from the GRC them. No one in our country can make an analogue of Makeev. Hence all the castles.
            I repeat, tie up to refer to Vika, in which you blunders, mistakes and outright misinformation at least backwards.
            I can not understand you wikipedia or something? laughing I sent you there only so that you would see who is involved in Sarmat. What I write is not written on any Wikipedia.
            1. Andrey NM
              Andrey NM 28 January 2017 06: 38
              +1
              The mace is the protégé of Jacob Urinson and his friend Solomonov, and Vladimir Zinovievich Dvorkin, head of the Central Research Institute of Defense, who has never been involved in marine products, was pulled into the "looker". Dvorkin is now actively cooperating with "foreign" organizations, supporting the deployment of American missile defense systems in Europe. Where is Urinson now?
              For the entire period since the 80s of operation of the 3M-37 liquid product and its modifications, there have not been a single unsuccessful start-up (the first Behemoth had abnormal products with miscalculations of designers), not a single incident during storage, loading, regulations, etc. At the test stage, even if they all explode, but after the commissioning of this should not be. And here the adopted Mace does not want to fly normally.
              Who says hard products are easier to store? The microclimate system is no simpler for them; temperature fluctuations are even more harmful for them.
              In which TPK are liquid cars stored and transported? What kind of nonsense? And the "solid" are busy in the TPK in the back of KAMAZ in bulk? For the first and second, there are special warehouse "carts", there are transport systems with microclimate support and gas analysis. For liquid, no additional shells such as TPK are required.
              The Americans, of course, everything is perfect, but for some reason Trident-2 with approximately equal characteristics with 3M-37 weighs 20 tons more.
              Regarding the safe storage of solid fuel products, one can recall how “solid” solid fuel products exploded at the RTB in Severomorsk in the mid-80s. The whole city was left without glass.
              1. adept666
                adept666 28 January 2017 09: 07
                0
                The mace is the protégé of Jacob Urinson and his friend Solomonov, and Vladimir Zinovievich Dvorkin, head of the 4th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense

                None of them had the opportunity to push through the Mace, so why this useless text?
                At the test stage, even if they all explode, but after the commissioning of this should not be. And here the adopted Mace does not want to fly normally.
                The problem is production, not design. About the culture of production, I wrote above. So no argument. As for the 3M-37, it was also not done from scratch, but based on previous experience, unlike Mace.
                In which TPK are liquid cars stored and transported? What kind of nonsense?
                This is nonsense personally yours, I did not write this anywhere. TPK is not only a microclimate, but also convenience when transporting / loading onto a carrier. There is nothing wrong with this and cannot be.
                Who says hard products are easier to store? The microclimate system is no simpler for them; temperature fluctuations are even more harmful for them.
                I said. Storing products with the creation of a microclimate and storing products with the creation of a microclimate + several hundred highly toxic fuels are different things and this is not even discussed.
                And the "solid" are busy in the TPK in the back of KAMAZ in bulk? For the first and second there are special warehouse "carts"
                And what follows from this? What is transportation of some equal to transportation of others? This is not true.
                The Americans, of course, everything is perfect, but for some reason Trident-2 with approximately equal characteristics with 3M-37 weighs 20 tons more.
                Did I say somewhere that Tradent is better than Sineva in terms of performance characteristics?
                Regarding the safe storage of solid fuel products, you can recall
                At the same time, remember how many accidents related to heptyl. And compare where more. Well, look for similar cases in the USA with Trident missiles. Any product with vigorous fuel is potentially dangerous if it is not stored and used correctly. However, the risks with heptyl are much higher if you think otherwise - I’m not going to convince you of the opposite.
                1. Andrey NM
                  Andrey NM 28 January 2017 11: 25
                  +1
                  On TPK a little higher was written not by you "TPK is an anachronism inherited from liquid fuel missiles ...".
                  For transportation, storage, etc. I’m absolutely not going to discuss, convince and argue, I don’t see any point, because gave a significant part of his life to these issues. What is military service and how to prepare for it, I have experienced more than once on myself. 80-90% of accidents with products on board were associated with curvature of personnel. In May 1984, in Severomorsk in Okolnaya - the result of the same gouging. There are enough problems with solid and liquid products, especially if there will be headless personnel around with playful hands.
                  1. adept666
                    adept666 28 January 2017 14: 53
                    0
                    On TPK a little higher was written not by you "TPK is an anachronism inherited from liquid fuel missiles ...".
                    Then why did you write this to me?
                    80-90% of accidents with products on board were associated with curvature of personnel.
                    Well, so am I really against it? About this and write:
                    For any mobile platform (including nuclear submarines), a solid-rocket missile is better from the point of view of storage / transportation / preparation for launch safety, as well as in terms of requirements for the carrier and crew.
                    There are enough problems with solid and liquid products, especially if there will be headless personnel around with playful hands.
                    It goes without saying. However, there are fewer problems with products in the TPK and consequently the requirements for personnel, too, but this of course does not mean that the products in the TPK can be unloaded like bags of sugar from the side of the truck.
                  2. Dzafdet
                    Dzafdet 2 March 2017 04: 51
                    0
                    + 100500! All accidents are errors in crew actions
                2. Dzafdet
                  Dzafdet 2 March 2017 04: 49
                  0
                  I said. Storing products with the creation of a microclimate and storing products with the creation of a microclimate + several hundred highly toxic fuels are different things and this is not even discussed.
                  You confuse the drainage system for rockets with LRE with a microclimate system. Solid fuel missiles have shorter shelf life. And, following your logic, having 640 tons of explosives on board is no better than having heptyl on board ...
                  1. adept666
                    adept666 2 March 2017 07: 47
                    0
                    You confuse the drainage system for rockets with LRE with a microclimate system.
                    I don’t confuse anything) For rockets with a pair of UDMG / AT, the missile shafts are equipped with automated irrigation systems, gas analysis and microclimate maintenance in the given parameters. The microclimate is more necessary for AT because in a liquid state at normal atmospheric pressure it is in a very narrow temperature range. And therefore, depending on the created excess pressure in the tank and the external temperature, it must either be heated or cooled and always kept in the range from about -5,5 C to 14,5 C. It is transported in approximately the same way. At the same time, tanks and components of the fuel system in contact with such types of fuel undergo inevitable corrosion (this applies more to AT).
                    Solid fuel missiles have shorter shelf life.

                    Say so purely on the basis of safety and fault tolerance, it’s in principle to keep that those that others are best not more than 10 years old and periodically change to new ones, and not extend the terms to 15 ... 20 ... 30 ... so how big the lottery will fly / not fly. And the fact that we have such missiles in service is just a necessary measure, and not some indisputable advantage of rockets with LRE. Therefore, yes, it can be stored longer, but it is not advisable and even harmful, so there is no particular advantage. Moreover, we are talking about marine products, and there wear is always higher. Therefore, the microclimate system in the TPK for rockets with solid propellant rocket engines is simpler, more reliable and most importantly more compact than the entire security system for rockets with rocket engines to which a depletion system is also added.
                    And, following your logic, having 640 tons of explosives on board is no better than having heptyl on board ...
                    It’s better since you have to try to make it work, but with rocket engines, because of the complexity of the maintenance systems and the greater number of possible emergency situations, it is easier to do, which is actually demonstrated by the accident on K-219 (twice) and on K-444.
                    1. Dzafdet
                      Dzafdet 2 March 2017 17: 07
                      +1
                      It’s better since you have to try to make it work, but with rocket engines, because of the complexity of the maintenance systems and the greater number of possible emergency situations, it is easier to do, which is actually demonstrated by the accident on K-219 (twice) and on K-444.

                      You, as a sharpie, play with speckled cards. It was a R-27 missile. There were no accidents with the P-29.

                      Something I don’t remember, that the alloy AMG-6 was CORROSIVE. I have never heard of such a case. The tanks are refilled at the factory and sealed. After 10 years, refilled. The solid propellant solid waste can be disposed of unambiguously .. And the production of solid propellant solid propellant is much more complicated.
                      1. adept666
                        adept666 3 March 2017 20: 04
                        0
                        You, as a sharpie, play with speckled cards. It was a R-27 missile. There were no accidents with the P-29.
                        It was about rockets with LRE and their potential danger. In the post that you commented, I did not discuss specific models, but the general pros and cons of the two types of propulsion systems. The fact that there were no such cases with Sinova, the launch scheme is similar, the risks are the same. So this is not me as a sharpie, but you.
                        Something I don’t remember, that the alloy AMG-6 was CORROSIVE.
                        Among magnaliums, this alloy takes the first place in strength and hardness, but the last place in corrosion resistance and has the worst plastic properties among analogues. What happened to your memory, I did not know.
                        The solid propellant solid waste must be disposed of unambiguously.
                        Like everything in this world, but it’s a natural process so it’s neither bad nor good - it’s normal wink
                        And the production of solid propellant rocket motors is much more complicated.
                        Yes, checkers are not so simple, but here the question is to the culture of production, experience and technology. With LRE on high-boiling components at the stage of their formation, the problems were many times greater.
                    2. Andrey NM
                      Andrey NM 5 March 2017 09: 47
                      +1
                      Quote: adept666
                      And therefore, depending on the created excess pressure in the tank and the external temperature, it must either be heated or cooled and always kept in the range from about -5,5 C to 14,5 C.

                      This suggests that you absolutely do not know the ship and coastal microclimate systems and storage parameters.
                      Quote: adept666
                      Say so purely on the basis of safety and fault tolerance, it’s in principle to keep that those that others are best not more than 10 years old and periodically change to new ones, and not extend the terms to 15 ... 20 ... 30 ... so how big the lottery will fly / not fly. And the fact that we have such missiles in service is just a necessary measure, and not some indisputable advantage of rockets with LRE.

                      Even in the distant days of socialism, it was established that the period of use of these components can be up to 50 years, it is possible to refuel components from a product that has expired, which is confirmed by the launches of Sineva. Great lottery with a 100 percent win.
                      At K-444, the accident occurred solely due to its own curvature. You must agree that it is difficult to relieve pressure when a technological plug is forgotten during installation on one of the lines. Especially when you pop up in violation of the instructions.
                      At K-219, both accidents were associated with leaking shaft covers and the flow of overboard water into the shafts. It may well be that there was a manufacturing defect, but this is my opinion. If the commander of the warhead-2 timely reported to the central about the presence of water in the mine, and did not engage in amateur activities, then an accident with such consequences could have been avoided. They would merge the component and return to the base. Do you know how and which component merges? The commander of the BS-2 should have shaved every morning, and not grow a beard, which later became the cause of his poisoning when poisonous fumes fell under her mask because of a beard.
                      Quote: adept666
                      Moreover, we are talking about marine products, and there wear is always higher. Therefore, the microclimate system in the TPK for rockets with solid propellant rocket engines is simpler, more reliable and most importantly more compact than the entire security system for rockets with rocket engines to which a depletion system is also added.

                      Depreciation of what? And for mines with solid propellant rocket engines, a drainage system is not needed? However...
                      1. adept666
                        adept666 5 March 2017 12: 33
                        0
                        This suggests that you absolutely do not know the ship and coastal microclimate systems and storage parameters.
                        I really do not know all the subtleties of this particular type of storage, but I strongly suspect that they do not differ much. Surprise me.
                        Even in the distant days of socialism, it was found that the term of use of these components can be up to 50 years
                        A lot of things were established in those days, but it was far from always confirmed by the practice of alas.
                        it is possible to refuel components from a product that has expired, which is confirmed by the launches of Sineva.
                        Nowhere has it been argued that this is impossible. Another question is how justified?
                        Great lottery with a 100 percent win.
                        This is a grandmother for two said what percentage of winnings in this lottery. Sineva did not serve so much to state this unambiguously, since the dimensions of the steps are changed, then her tanks are relatively new, and not refilled. They only just reached the 10-year mark.
                        The accident occurred on K-444 solely because of its own curvature.
                        With missiles on the TST, this would in principle be ruled out due to the peculiarity of the launch.
      2. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 26 January 2017 18: 05
        0
        It is normal to give an order for a new project with the start of mass production. On the contrary, it is correct that the Makeyevites were not given, what was washed down on the basis of the first stage of Molodets was not good, as a result, water carriers had to rivet.
      3. rubin6286
        rubin6286 10 February 2017 13: 58
        0
        After launching into a series, all of our ballistic missiles are first put on pilot combat duty (OBD) and only then on combat duty (DB). HBS is necessary in order to determine the real capabilities of the rocket and the need to improve (modernize) certain parameters (characteristics), structural elements, assemblies and systems. The Mace is no exception. Gradually, they’ll “bring it to mind”, just as it was with a Kalashnikov, T-72 or MiG-21 assault rifle. The situation with the state’s nuclear shield is not at all critical. The Strategic Missile Forces today will have enough missiles to reason all our sworn "friends" in any corner of the globe.
      4. NordOst16
        NordOst16 31 May 2017 13: 02
        0
        Yes, there have always been problems with solid fuels, but they have advantages over liquid fuels, and the modernization of the Americans’s Polaris SSB was also not in service for long.
  3. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 26 January 2017 09: 54
    0
    The article gave rise to a large number of new questions ... the answers to which are not obvious ... the rejection of the TPK gives rise not only to the requirements for SSBNs ... but the missile itself, for example, how to load it into the mine (earlier loads ... possible impacts during transportation were held by the TPK) ... and the start will be "mortar ??? ... how much will you have to strengthen the elements of the launch shaft ???, etc."
    Plus a submarine and so a serious amount of "iron" ... it was already learned to track it by changing the earth's magnetic field ... it is undesirable to add mass / weight there ...
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 10 February 2017 14: 01
      0
      I feel that you understand something in rockets with solid propellant rocket engines and SSBN design.
  4. Operator
    Operator 26 January 2017 10: 35
    +2
    MIT - even those freaks who worsened the performance characteristics of the Bulava to the maximum at the expense of the TPK that nobody needed.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 26 January 2017 18: 07
      +1
      MIT, on the contrary, is specialists in solid rockets, no one will do better than them now.
      1. NordOst16
        NordOst16 31 May 2017 13: 04
        0
        He will not do it in the Russian Federation, the Americans have long overtaken Russia in solid-fuel rockets, but we must catch up with them.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 31 May 2017 13: 06
          +2
          Quote: NordOst16
          He will not do it in the Russian Federation, the Americans have long overtaken Russia in solid-fuel rockets, but we must catch up with them.

          Seriously, they overtook ... then tell me, what is ICBM RUBEZH (Vanguard) and is there something similar for mattresses?
          1. NordOst16
            NordOst16 31 May 2017 18: 54
            0
            The Americans UGM-133A Trident II adopted into service in 1990, before which the "Bulava" as to Beijing as cancer (both in energy (the ratio of thrown mass to the total mass of the rocket) and in the accuracy of pointing the blocks and their number, and in range) . And as for mobile missiles - they do not need it. They have the main potential at apl, which is at least no worse.
  5. Old26
    Old26 26 January 2017 10: 52
    +4
    Quote: PSih2097
    Damn, what kind of modernization, first bring to mind the basic project so that the rocket flies normally, otherwise we will catch up and overtake the Makeyevtsy, and only then we need to think about improving performance.

    Most likely, ordinary modernization will not help here. They are actually making a new rocket under the guise of upgrading the old one. After all, the old ones have already reported that everything is fine and adopted. But there is no stability. No one will give money for a new rocket. And for modernization - why not.

    Quote: kugelblitz
    In principle, it is still good now, due to the quasi-ballistic flight path, with a further version with hypersonic blocks.

    It would be nice if it flies stably, which is not. A quasi-ballistic trajectory is good for missiles with long ranges because it eats up a range of almost threefold. Accuracy is also falling. Well, hypersonic blocks on a rocket with an throwing weight of 1150 kg are of course the most necessary .... They already have hypersonic ones ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 January 2017 11: 24
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Most likely, ordinary modernization will not help here. They are actually making a new rocket under the guise of upgrading the old.

      Standard practice. The Makeyevtsy were doing roughly the same thing with the Bark, calling the new R-39UTTH missile.
    2. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 26 January 2017 18: 14
      0
      But to shoot down is much more difficult, later the time of detection, the missile defense will have to fly longer through the dense layers of the atmosphere, if the range is enough. Therefore, they made sacrifices, although it was hardly conceded to the Trident.
      Why bring down the same Iskander? Especially with its unpredictable trajectory, the Mace with the maneuvering final block is the same.
    3. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 28 January 2017 06: 41
      +1
      It’s not so simple. Makeev’s design bureau gave an order to develop a new product for submarines.
    4. NordOst16
      NordOst16 31 May 2017 13: 06
      0
      Most likely, as the Americans will do, they’ll fill new fuel bombs into the old building, and change the electronics, the building will most likely leave the old one, unless, of course, they increase the dimensions of the rocket
  6. Wolka
    Wolka 26 January 2017 18: 07
    +1
    time has clearly shown who has stopped to improve strategic and tactical weapons, including their delivery vehicles, that potentially always loser on all fronts
  7. Old26
    Old26 26 January 2017 20: 09
    0
    Quote: kugelblitz
    Why bring down the same Iskander? Especially with its unpredictable trajectory, the Mace with the maneuvering final block is the same.

    People like bikes so much that they soon become an unapplied truth in the media. For example, Iskander. His engine runs about 15-25 seconds. During this time, he flies using an inertial guidance system. After this short time, the engine stops working and it flies by inertia. What unpredictable trajectory can we talk about? If he has a correlation guidance head, then it starts to work already at the final stage of the flight. And since his head is not detachable, you have to maneuver the rocket, which gave rise to rumors about the unpredictability of the trajectory. Well, I would understand the engine would work for him for 5-7 minutes, then we could at least somehow talk about unpredictability.

    Further. There are no maneuvering blocks for the "Mace" and so far is not expected. So do not rely on them. What is being tested on the carrier 15Y71 is a "fool" with a length of 5-6 meters, if not more and weighing a couple of tons. Even at “Sarmat” they will be by no means 10-16 as they like to write. A couple of. Are you going to hyper put on the "Mace" with its ton with copecks of cast weight?
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 26 January 2017 21: 02
      +2
      And aerodynamic wheels then? Baska is then inseparable, drag.

  8. tchoni
    tchoni 26 January 2017 20: 34
    0
    "the rocket will be made a little longer; it will fly a little further!" there are no other words in the article., oh yes .. she is 12 meters ..
  9. dubowitskij.vick
    dubowitskij.vick 26 January 2017 22: 09
    +1
    Quote: PSih2097
    Damn, what kind of modernization, first bring to mind the basic project so that the rocket flies normally, otherwise we will catch up and overtake the Makeyevtsy, and only then we need to think about improving performance.

    Does it occur to you that this is the very modernization with the simultaneous elimination of shortcomings? Yes, a deeper one, but if real offers appeared, then the crime could not be carried out.
  10. Old26
    Old26 28 January 2017 10: 24
    0
    Quote: kugelblitz
    And aerodynamic wheels then? Baska is then inseparable, drag.


    Of course, it does some kind of evolution, but unpredictability lies in the fact that the “product” maneuvers in a wide range of altitudes and course, heading toward the target.
    And how many maneuver aerodynamic rudders when the engine is not running and you need to "steer" not a head, but a rocket?
  11. bk0010
    bk0010 30 January 2017 15: 35
    0
    What does everyone run into TPK? IMHO, this is a good solution in order not to drag into space the means necessary to provide the rocket during transportation and operation.
  12. rubin6286
    rubin6286 10 February 2017 13: 05
    0
    The article is informative and very superficial. On the one hand, a solid propellant rocket is a very capricious machine and the process of transporting and loading it into the nuclear submarine mine is a rather complicated and responsible procedure, in which the TPK, along with all other functions, plays the role of a damper, i.e. vibration damper, preventing damage to the charge and its detachment from the rocket body. Therefore, TPK will never be abandoned either by us or by our overseas “friends”.
    On the other hand, the energy properties of our solid fuels are such that, at the same firing range, solid fuel rockets always have one step more than rockets with LRE. The "mace" is already three-stage. To increase the firing range, the mass and quantity of warheads, you must either change the mass-geometric characteristics of the rocket (launch mass, dimensions - the number of steps, length. Diameter), or change the law of combustion of solid fuel, replacing the existing one with a new high-energy one. So far, information about the new fuel has not appeared in the media.
    As for the elements of the control system, means of overcoming missile defense, and the design of warheads, they have been worked out quite well for decades to come. Special innovations in this matter can not be expected.
    In the nuclear submarine, with its external dimensions, it is quite crowded inside and getting rid of the TPK will not solve the problem. Most likely the use of missiles larger than the current Bulava will lead to a reduction in their number on the boat or the creation of a new series of boats for them.
    1. Dzafdet
      Dzafdet 2 March 2017 15: 51
      0
      The article is informative and very superficial. On the one hand, a solid propellant rocket is a very capricious machine and the process of transporting and loading it into the nuclear submarine mine is a rather complicated and responsible procedure, in which the TPK, along with all other functions, plays the role of a damper, i.e. vibration damper, preventing damage to the charge and its detachment from the rocket body. Therefore, TPK will never be abandoned either by us or by our overseas “friends”.


      that's just Trident is without TPK .... laughing
  13. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 24 February 2017 08: 33
    +1
    Well, as I understand it a long time ago, we don’t have any missiles called "Mace" ... Now they are trying, quietly, to bring this product to an operational state ...
  14. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 3 March 2017 22: 04
    0
    adept666,
    Before Sineva there was a R-29, there were also no accidents. Give facts when rockets were removed from the database or storage due to corrosion.
    No production culture can help you if your technology is lagging behind. LRE production mastered. Now you are proposing to abandon it for the sake of fashion ... Are we so rich?
    1. adept666
      adept666 4 March 2017 11: 18
      0
      Give facts when rockets were removed from the database or storage due to corrosion.
      I’m tired of admitting this argument is not about anything. Right now I got together, threw everything away and began to look for facts of decommissioning ICBM tanks for corrosion for you. Read in the alloy manuals there is everything about it, I especially recommend looking at information on alloys with a magnesium content of more than 5% and especially pay attention to the problems of production of such alloys and the consequences arising from them. Everything on this topic, I'm not going to excuse me to paint a course in metal science. smile
      No production culture can help you if your technology is lagging behind.
      Technologies and production culture in a certain sense in this matter are very identical concepts. But again, crawl into the jungle of the problems of creating solid mixed fuel, binders, etc. things ches the word no desire. There are many problems and no one argues with this. But the purpose of all the fuss is understandable and justified, as I wrote above:
      For any mobile platform (including nuclear submarines), a solid-propellant missile is better from the point of view of storage / transportation / preparation for launch safety, as well as in terms of carrier and crew requirements.

      Now you offer to abandon it for the sake of fashion ...
      No, I do not propose anything, this is what the MO wants, and I just write why their "Wishlist" are justified and that I agree with them. If this direction is not developed, then there will never be technology, well, and I want to remind us that not only ICBMs are equipped with RDTT engines ... I would like to look at MANPADS with a heptyl / amyl fuel pair laughing Therefore, the direction is promising and lagging behind in it is constantly highly recommended.
      Are we so rich?
      Well, how can I tell you if you can scratch the second military budget per year through scratching barns (if you shake citizens with very solid unearned income a bit, comrade Zakharchenko).
      1. Dzafdet
        Dzafdet 4 March 2017 13: 54
        0
        How skillfully you have merged, you feel rich experience. Our poor designers, what a bad rocket they have been doing for more than 30 years!
        “In building structures, these alloys are medium and highly corrosion resistant alloys. In transport structures in an industrial atmosphere they can be used without corrosion protection. The resistance is low in phenylethyl alcohol, ammonia water, solutions containing acetic acid (at elevated temperatures). Corrosion rate in other environments - approx. 0,005 mm / year. In conjunction with St3 steel, contact corrosion is 0,02-0,04 mm / year. In sea water, alloys AMg5, AMg6 are more stable than pure aluminum.
        If you give the parameters of the atmosphere (which pairs are present?), I can report the updated data. In a mixture of water, sulfuric acid and nitric acid - from high (corrosion rate less than 0,8 g / m2 in 24 hours) at ordinary temperature to none (more than 72 g / m2 in 24 hours) at a temperature of 45 degrees.
        Specify where you want to apply.
        In the conditions of a tire factory (heavy), we used these alloys without coatings. They are. "

        Now calculate the corrosion with a step wall thickness of 4,5-4,8 mm .... laughing
        You forgot to write about the solid propellant rocket engine that nitrogen is pumped into the TPK, and it is not clear what MIT will do if it is abandoned. What is the resistance of solid propellant rocket rockets to deep-bombing? laughing
        1. adept666
          adept666 4 March 2017 15: 26
          0
          How skillfully you have merged, you feel rich experience.

          Yes, you can fantasize with words how much you will fit. I somehow exactly on your ulcer.
          Our poor designers, what a bad rocket they have been doing for more than 30 years!

          Do you have any itching in the rocket engine? laughing By God, some kind of sect is direct)
          If you give the parameters of the atmosphere (which pairs are present?), I can report the updated data.
          I didn’t send you for materiel so that you would read something to me or copy-paste here laughing I have written many times about what substance is in question.
          You forgot to write about the solid propellant rocket engine that nitrogen is pumped into the TPK, and it is not clear what MIT will do if it is abandoned.
          I forgot nothing and could not do this because I did not describe the design of the TPK. Are you trying to prove to me that rocket engines are better than solid propellant rocket engines? Do not prove, even if you copy the entire Wikipedia here, because I dealt with heptyl / amil and I know what it is and I understand why the Moscow Region wants a solid-state missile-based solid-state missile system.
          What is the resistance of solid propellant rocket rockets to deep-bombing?

          I didn’t fire, I don’t know laughing But in any case, no worse than rockets with Russian Railways. I close this topic on a sim because there is no constructive dialogue in your dialogue besides emotions on your part.
          1. Dzafdet
            Dzafdet 4 March 2017 19: 40
            0
            Before you write something, you need to think. All aluminum alloys have an oxide film. It is not easy to remove it, hence the high resistance to corrosion. The position of the Moscow Region is understandable, but 16 years have been lost due to Moscow leaders who stupidly wanted to earn money, but I don’t understand your ridicule about the resistance to bombing. Kursk was also considered unsinkable, but he received two torpedoes in the hull and the entire crew died. MIT stupidly transferred its decisions from land to sea, hence the result: there are boats, but no ammunition.
            1. adept666
              adept666 5 March 2017 11: 59
              0
              Before you write something, you need to think. All aluminum alloys have an oxide film.
              Now, before you write something, you need to study the mat part. Under certain conditions, even high-purity aluminum is subject to corrosion, and here more than 5% magnesium, and this is an impurity. Moreover, the structural integrity of the alloy very much depends on the purity of production (which is not so simple to ensure in the series) and the worse it is, the worse the anticorrosion properties of the final alloy will be.
              And your ridicule about resistance to bombing is not clear to me.

              What is not clear? You want to get an answer regarding the durability of a certain product located on some other product when exposed to a shock wave of an explosion in a person who has not conducted these studies and does not have access to such studies. I’ll tell you more, even people who serve on data carriers of these missiles don’t know all the features and design of compensating, damper, anti-stress systems implemented on this particular instance, it is at least state-owned. secret.
              Kursk was also considered unsinkable, but he received two torpedoes in the hull and the entire crew died.
              I do not study and comment on conspiratorial theories.
              1. Dzafdet
                Dzafdet 6 March 2017 20: 52
                0
                Mace tests for resistance to bombing were not carried out, as were tests for the range of transportation by various vehicles. All sites write about the high resistance of the alloy AMG-6 to corrosion. MIT has been developing the Mace for 16 years, which means it will make a new rocket by 2032, and by this time all BRDM will be written off and we will be left without SLBMs. That is, the boats will be, but they will have nothing to shoot ...
                1. adept666
                  adept666 7 March 2017 07: 30
                  0
                  Mace tests for resistance to bombing were not carried out, as were tests for the range of transportation by various vehicles.
                  How do you know this? what
                  All sites write about the high resistance of the alloy AMG-6 to corrosion.

                  Well, otherwise you wouldn’t use it, how would you not find it? Only high resistance does not give 100% resistance to various corrosion influences, but multiplied by the nth number of years, taking into account that under degradation the alloy exhibits increased corrosion wear with every n + 1 year, its reliability also decreases accordingly and is stronger every year . Can I keep my AT in such a tank for 20 years? Can. But the "TTX" of the tank after a year of refueling and after 10 years, alas, is already different. If we are talking about a tank for refueling a Proton, this is acceptable, because it is not subjected to stresses (it stands and costs itself dug up), and if for a product like an ICBM it is already a lottery.
                  MIT has been developing the Mace for 16 years, which means it will make a new rocket by 2032
                  How you famously calculated everything. Life is a little multifaceted. The main difficulty in creating a reliable production of drafts is mastered, then it should be faster and more fun (well, given the interest of the state, of course)
                  That is, the boats will be, but they will have nothing to shoot ...
                  I’ll tell you the secret of the nuclear submarines. We do not have the basis of the Strategic Missile Forces, as in the United States. Sarmat will compensate for the slight weakening of this component. IMHO for this and the calculation, but the fleet will get a simpler to use mobile-based product. We are not smarter than those who started all this, so the risks are calculated.
                  1. Dzafdet
                    Dzafdet 7 March 2017 17: 38
                    0
                    From conversations with developers .. laughing laughing
                    R-29 missiles have long been tested for corrosion resistance .. wassat laughing
                    What are you saying, but facts are stubborn things, take them out and put them down for 16 years .. wassat wassat
                    but just apl - the basis for placing apples .. tongue tongue
                    1. adept666
                      adept666 7 March 2017 19: 01
                      0
                      From conversations with developers .. laughing laughing

                      Ah ... well, yes, yes ... Am I the daughter of an officer?
                      What are you saying, but facts are stubborn things, take them out and put them down for 16 years ..
                      Do you have the results of tank audit? If not, you can lay out and lay down what and where you want.
                      but just apl - the basis for placing apples ..
                      Not in our nuclear triad.
  15. Andrey NM
    Andrey NM 5 March 2017 14: 28
    +1
    adept666,
    Quote: adept666
    I really do not know all the subtleties of this particular type of storage, but I strongly suspect that they do not differ much. Surprise me.

    I’m not going to surprise you, but they differ decently from what you stated. You tried to force someone to learn something there. It would not hurt you to do this. They said something about resistance to bombing ... At the first Hippo in 1989, the explosion of an abnormal product in a mine affected the products in neighboring ones? No way.
    Quote: adept666
    A lot of things were established in those days, but it was far from always confirmed by the practice of alas.

    That's just the practice that has already been confirmed.
    Quote: adept666
    Sineva did not serve so much to state this unambiguously, since the dimensions of the steps are changed, then her tanks are relatively new, and not refilled. They only just reached the 10-year mark.

    What sizes are changed there? Then the size of the mines changed? Those. remodeled strong cases? When you don’t know how the "simple" 37th car differs from the modernized one and how it turned into a "Blue" and "Liner", you better not talk about this topic.
    Quote: adept666
    With missiles on the TST, this would in principle be ruled out due to the peculiarity of the launch.

    When the product is already in the pre-start mode, it is un-ampulized, pressurized, the gyroscopes are spinning, the launch pyro-nodes are about to spin the turbopump units and the membranes will burst ... I remember how a solid-fuel rocket in one of the Sharks hit the shaft. Impossible, speak? And he personally knew the culprit. Unfortunately, he died last year ...

    You know, when I don’t know the topic, I usually don’t make different statements. I have this principle. And if I say something, I mark the source or say that I’m not sure, or that this is my personal opinion.
    1. adept666
      adept666 7 March 2017 07: 15
      0
      I’m not going to surprise you, but they differ decently from what you stated.

      In general, you yourself do not know, then:
      You know, when I don’t know the topic, I don’t usually make different statements

      Empty pathetic chatter.
      They said something about resistance to bombing ... At the first Hippo in 1989, the explosion of an abnormal product in a mine affected the products in neighboring ones? No way.

      You have problems with your eyes, or with the perception of what has already been written a second or third (too lazy to look) time, you attribute to me what I did not say. I said that it is no worse than that of missiles with Russian Railways (in response to the comment of the same adherent of Russian Railways as you laughing ), this is the case in the same explosion that you indicated the 3 steps of the R-39 banged below and how did this affect the neighboring products? No way. And the mass of 39 matches is almost 3 times more than that of the Bulava, i.e. explosion energy will be much less. If the 39th neighboring products have not been poked, why did you get the idea that the Mace will certainly do this? request As for the K-84 explosion, there wasn’t such a thing, what happened there was called a fast-flowing fire and, due to pressure, tore out the shaft cover (which was actually constructively conceived) and part of the rocket body. Compared to what happened in Arkhangelsk, these are just seeds.
      That's just the practice that has already been confirmed.

      No.
      What sizes are changed there? Then the size of the mines changed? Those. remodeled strong cases?
      1: Steps 2: None 3: None. To change the size of the steps, it is not necessary to go beyond the size of the original product, in one they added to the other. This is elementary, especially for such an advanced connoisseur like you laughing
      When you don’t know how the "simple" 37th car differs from the modernized one and how it turned into a "Blue" and "Liner", you better not talk about this topic.
      Well, where am I supposed to be hammering before you? Somewhere near the nuclear submarine laughing
      When the product is already in the pre-start mode, un-ampulized, pressurized, the gyroscopes spin, the start-up pyro nodes are about to spin the turbopump units and the membranes will break ...
      The beginning of your new science fiction novel?
      I remember how in the mine a solid-propellant rocket on one of the Sharks thundered. Impossible, speak? And he personally knew the culprit. Unfortunately, he died last year ...
      Culprit say? Ahah. The cause of the explosion in Arkhangelsk is a factory defect in a rocket. This has nothing to do with the crew. Storyteller. The crew did just the right thing, and this made it possible to save the boat and several settlements, and possibly the ball as a whole.
      I have this principle.
      You have bad principles, definitely laughing
      And if I say something, I mark the source or say that I’m not sure, or that this is my personal opinion.
      You have already spoken / written so much without indicating the source so that the next pathos bravado is no more.
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 7 March 2017 12: 08
        +1
        And therefore, depending on the created excess pressure in the tank and the external temperature, it must either be heated or cooled and always kept in the range from about -5,5 C to 14,5 C.

        Only after this phrase there is nothing to talk about.

        Quote: adept666
        in one cut off in another added.

        Yes, of course, everything is elementary.

        Quote: adept666
        As for the K-84 explosion, there wasn’t

        This process can be called whatever you like ... Just think, a couple of tons as a result flew the entire ship and broke through the Central City Hospital. And only the bottom remained in the mine, which then did not know how to get it. A trifle ...

        Quote: adept666
        The beginning of your new science fiction novel?

        No, probably your usual ignorance of equipment.

        Quote: adept666
        The crew did just the right thing, and this made it possible to save the boat and several settlements, and possibly the ball as a whole.

        And then the most correct ones began to go in civilian clothes. True reasons for dismissal can come up with a million. And it turns out that solid propellants still plow, and even with consequences of a universal scale. Safe ...

        1. adept666
          adept666 7 March 2017 12: 55
          0
          Only after this phrase there is nothing to talk about.

          The third post is ordinary idle talk, not tired? Referring to the sources you are our laughing
          Yes, of course, everything is elementary.

          Elementary in order to fit the product into the dimensions, but why change the circuit is a separate conversation with individual OCD, but it’s useless to explain this to you.
          This process can be called whatever you like ... Just think, a couple of tons as a result flew the entire ship and broke through the Central City Hospital. And only the bottom remained in the mine, which then did not know how to get it. A trifle ...
          This process is named as it should be named, no one minimizes its consequences, but in comparison with the P-39 explosion this is a trifle.
          No, probably your usual ignorance of equipment.

          You have a talent for inserting phrases that are not relevant to the subject of the conversation, and therefore such a reaction to it. Of course, according to the knowledge of the mathematical part, I can’t compare with you as a sofa expert, but I know something laughing
          And then the most correct ones began to go in civilian clothes.

          Oooo another conspiracy theorist. Interestingly, all the ardent adherents of Russian Railways are? laughing
          True reasons for dismissal can come up with a million.

          Oh, these tales .... Oh, these storytellers ... Especially if the reason is precisely known: a factory defect in a rocket and a failure of automation, there is no human factor - the official conclusion of the commission. But you can continue to fantasize.
          And it turns out that solid propellants still plow, and even with consequences of a universal scale. Safe ...
          Yes, but the reason is not the human factor - time (as in the case of the Russian Railways, which was actually a discussion), I already wrote and will repeat: Any product with vigorous fuel is potentially dangerous if it is not stored and used correctly. And I will add: to produce with a violation of technology - two. Since the R-39 is a test of the pen, and there was a lot of first made one accident, this is normal. The mace is another missile with a different storage / loading / alert / prelaunch scheme, in which the P-39 operation errors have already been taken into account.
          I’ll have one question for you, basically referring to sources: where are the links? laughing And then the air shook, and things are still there ... not good ...
          1. Andrey NM
            Andrey NM 7 March 2017 16: 29
            +1
            Quote: adept666
            The third post is ordinary idle talk, not tired?

            Am I to lay out instructions on the day-to-day maintenance systems of the complex?
            Quote: adept666
            Interestingly, all the ardent adherents of Russian Railways are?

            I don’t know, I had no business with the railroad workers.
            Quote: adept666
            I cannot compare with you as a sofa expert

            My "sofas" were in 4-5 compartments and the CPU. And on the K-84 went to sea. Together with the "source". Not going to be equal to anyone.
            Quote: adept666
            one accident is normal

            I want to remind you that on BDMs with standard products during operation there was not a single incident or accident for the entire period of operation.
            Quote: adept666
            The mace is another missile with a different storage / loading / alert / prelaunch scheme, in which the P-39 operation errors have already been taken into account.

            With storage errors can be taken into account. Only flies through time. Good item.
            1. adept666
              adept666 7 March 2017 17: 00
              0
              Am I to lay out instructions on the day-to-day maintenance systems of the complex?
              Yes, if you can. Especially in microclimate systems for tanks with amyl.
              I don’t know, I had no business with the railroad workers.
              Yes, yes ... my typo doesn’t happen to anyone, you also confused ship projects in articles, but the joke was counted, laughed laughing good
              My "sofas" were in 4-5 compartments and the CPU. And on the K-84 went to sea. Together with the "source". Not going to be equal to anyone.
              Well, suppose you went, but you are not a developer, but an operator, so checkmate. part is known to you just enough to ensure the duty of the product and its launch. This is not the whole mat. part. But judging by the water that you write there are doubts that the sofas were in 4-5 CPU bays, I'm sorry.
              I want to remind you that on BDMs with standard products during operation there was not a single incident or accident for the entire period of operation.
              It was not, but actually this is the result of the operation of other products with liquid propellant rocket engines. Yes, reliability after a whole complex of measures has really increased, which is actually not an indicator of stability.
              With storage errors can be taken into account. Only flies through time. Good item.

              Normally flies, Moscow was not immediately built. Let me remind you that the rocket was made in not the best economic and scientific-technical conditions. She flies normally she has no choice. laughing
              1. Andrey NM
                Andrey NM 7 March 2017 19: 47
                +1
                Quote: adept666
                Especially in microclimate systems for tanks with amyl.

                Oh yes ... The components are stored in separate canisters there ... I did not know ... And for them there are separate microclimate systems!
                Quote: adept666
                but you are not a developer, but an operator, so mate. part is known to you just enough to ensure the duty of the product and its launch.

                Oh, you know how much I know the materiel? Judging by your sayings, this materiel is generally known to you superficially. Tanks with amyl on pl - perl. Refute. And so - idle talk. You all demand irrefutable links and evidence. Weak yourself?
                Quote: adept666
                It was not, but actually this is the result of the operation of other products with liquid propellant rocket engines. Yes, reliability after a whole complex of measures has really increased, which is actually not an indicator of stability.

                Verbiage. More than 10 years of chewing "Mace", while the "Makeevites" are not connected. Fly, of course. At what cost? We do not need such a “Moscow”. And why all of a sudden the “Makeevites” were commissioned to develop a new product?
                Quote: adept666
                But judging by the water that you write there are doubts that the sofas were in 4-5 CPU bays, I'm sorry.

                In general, I doubt that you had at least such “sofas”.
                Quote: adept666
                you also confused ship projects in articles

                What articles? I do not write articles. Rave
                Quote: adept666
                Let me remind you that the rocket was made in not the best economic and scientific-technical conditions.

                Let me remind you that Urinson, Sergeyev, Solomonov, Dvorkin, Kuroedov actually closed the almost finished development of Bark, and dragged the flows to MIT. Kuroedov is a separate issue.
                1. adept666
                  adept666 25 March 2017 14: 14
                  0
                  Oh yes ... The components are stored in separate canisters there ... I did not know ... And for them there are separate microclimate systems!
                  Are you this with yourself? You obviously have an association problem.
                  Oh, you know how much I know the materiel?
                  Unfortunately I did not know, because I spent a lot of time discussing with you. Now it’s clear that it is in the region of 0. Some show off and blah blah blah.
                  Refute.
                  What to refute? How I store and transport Nitrogen tetraoxide for the Proton launch vehicle I have already written above. You asked if I need instructions on how to do this for ICBMs, I told you, yes, especially in the area of ​​AT. Where is the instruction?
                  And so - idle talk.
                  It’s more about you.
                  You all demand irrefutable links and evidence. Weak yourself?
                  You and comrade Tugov’s memory. About links and principles, you cautiously stuttered, I quote:
                  You know, when I don’t know the topic, I usually don’t make different statements. I have this principle. And if I say something, I mark the source or say that I’m not sure, or that this is my personal opinion.
                  At the same time, they didn’t bring a single one in their post, so I asked you where are the links? (This is your type of principle). And then you are building a fierce nuclear-powered boat out of yourself, but you refute your own words with action. Is there something wrong with the principles you don’t find?
                  In general, I doubt that you had at least such “sofas”.
                  Yes, you can doubt anything at all exactly for me. The discussion was about something else.
                  What articles? I do not write articles. Rave
                  It may have confused you with another author, but this is generally not important.
                  More than 10 years of chewing "Mace", while the "Makeevites" are not connected. Fly, of course. At what cost? We do not need such a “Moscow”. And why all of a sudden the “Makeevites” were commissioned to develop a new product?
                  When you write, specify a little about what it’s about, otherwise a set of words seems to be collected in sentences. Makeevtsev in the start part was connected almost immediately, and not after 10 years of chewing. Not just fly, but already amiable kindly flies. Who do not need this for you? You are not at all within your bounds and your opinion as to which “Moscow” our MO needs no one will ask will you land a little on the ground (or on your sofa) laughing What new product are you talking about and when were you commissioned? They have a lot of topics.
                  Let me remind you that Urinson, Sergeyev, Solomonov, Dvorkin, Kuroedov actually closed the almost finished development of Bark, and dragged the flows to MIT. Kuroedov is a separate issue.
                  Not people ... giants are just laughing Maybe it's time to tie up with theories of improbability? These people could not solve this kind of question, they solved it in other places and at other levels. Kindergarten Camomile. laughing
                  1. Andrey NM
                    Andrey NM 25 March 2017 18: 14
                    +1
                    Before giving pearls here, make friends with the spelling, learn the Russian language, learn the punctuation. Correctly spelled "not a single", "... with a little tight memory, comrade", "out of business", etc. .. These are the basics, it all starts with them.
                    Quote: adept666
                    How I store and transport Nitrogen tetraoxide for the Proton launch vehicle I have already written above.

                    I absolutely do not care about how and what is stored for Protons. We are talking about the microclimate of missile systems RPKSN 667B, BDR, BDRM. It is clear that the specialist of the Kazakh Navy ... Or Kazakhstan? How is it with you? Here I am afraid to make a mistake. In short, it is better for such "specialists" to know how everything is arranged on the submarine. And you visited KRASMASH. Only I did not see you there. Laugh often for no reason. You know, laughter for no reason is definitely a sign ... So that you don’t carry nonsense here, I suggest you serve a little (at least 5-7 years) in the warhead-2, get the appropriate approvals for the instructions, then work out the appropriate production well would be the same five years ... Well, for the "adepts": the storage temperature of the "machines" - from 14 to 27 degrees.
                    Keep raving like that. Further I see no reason to talk.
                    1. adept666
                      adept666 25 March 2017 19: 47
                      0
                      Before issuing pearls here, make friends with the spelling, learn the Russian language,
                      I do not know him badly, but grammar is not my path and it is not for you to teach me the Russian language teacher. I had 4 words in Russian, but chemistry, mathematics and physics are a different matter.
                      I absolutely do not care about how and what is stored for Protons. We are talking about the microclimate of missile systems RPKSN 667B, BDR, BDRM. It is clear that the specialist of the Kazakh Navy ...
                      I have nothing to do with this Navy, I’m not even a military man and I have Russian citizenship, but nobody canceled the flag of Kazakhstan, so brother Kurchatov, Baikonur and Sary-Shagan.
                      Laugh often for no reason.
                      It’s a sin not to laugh at you with sofas and Csperds (I'm afraid to make a mistake in grammar) laughing fierce nuclear submarine with warhead)))
                      You know, laughing for no reason is definitely a sign ...
                      The reason, as it were, is clowns like you. .
                      So that you don’t carry nonsense here, I suggest you serve (at least 5-7 years) in the warhead-2, get the appropriate approvals for the instructions there, then work out the appropriate production for at least the same five years ...
                      Ponte is a go-go show, but in fact 0 without a wand.
                      Well, for the "adepts": the storage temperature of the "machines" is from 14 to 27 degrees.
                      It is doubtful whether the pressure in the tanks should be serious for such a temperature range.
                      Keep raving like that. Further I see no reason to talk.
                      Yes, what nonsense are you here? There are no links for which you have torn one place here, there are no specifics in your posts. So you can not continue to sense from you zilch all one.
                      1. Andrey NM
                        Andrey NM 25 March 2017 23: 08
                        +1
                        Quote: adept666
                        I have nothing to do with this Navy, I’m not even a military man and I have Russian citizenship, but nobody canceled the flag of Kazakhstan, so brother Kurchatov, Baikonur and Sary-Shagan.

                        Especially. I heard a jingle. Continue to catch gophers, rave and doubt. No one saw links from you either. But the language must be learned, otherwise it seems that I am talking with a bazaar woman.
                    2. adept666
                      adept666 26 March 2017 08: 20
                      0
                      Especially. I heard a jingle. Continue to catch gophers, rave and doubt.
                      Yes, the ringing is only from you, like an experienced one, and nothing but: I ... my sofas ... yes I .. yes, I covered the reactor with a causal place while Petya repaired it with a wrench. Well, again: everything was gone, the mace of the wrong system, etc. idle talk with claims to a great knowledge of the truth.
                      No one saw links from you either.
                      Unlike you, the principal one (well, in the sense of idle talk is yours) about the fact that I fill up all the links I did not say and did not promise them to anyone. He needs links, go to the technical library and read about AT pontorez, at least a little smarter ... although this is also doubtful. Here, a carriage was changed for five years from those experienced warheads-2 and all as one children of Lieutenant Schmidt laughing
                      But the language must be learned, otherwise it seems that I am talking with a bazaar woman.
                      You know, brother, I talked with both submariners and ordinary sailors (including officers) and the grandmother of the market before their jargon as far as China from Moscow, I assure you, and I’ve studied their grammar thoroughly do not flood. You, on the move, did not serve in our Navy as a hero of sea epics laughing
                      1. Andrey NM
                        Andrey NM 26 March 2017 18: 33
                        +1
                        The impression did not deceive me.
                        Quote: adept666
                        You know, brother, I talked with both submariners and ordinary sailors (including officers) and the grandmother of the bazaar before their jargon as far as China from Moscow, I assure you and I’ve studied their grammar thoroughly do not flood.

                        Well then, stomp your heel to China, there you will be there. And the Russian textbook will be useful. This is so as not to make three mistakes in a three-letter word. Physics and math, you say? Well, well ... Good luck on the road.
                    3. adept666
                      adept666 27 March 2017 11: 17
                      0
                      The impression did not deceive me.
                      Pustozonezhn you all can not take off? Already several posts one blah blah blah. Calm down already sea kou-fight with a warhead-2)))
                      1. Andrey NM
                        Andrey NM 27 March 2017 16: 16
                        +1
                        Have you stepped out to China? If you return, I’ll teach you jargon. laughing
                    4. adept666
                      adept666 28 March 2017 18: 48
                      0
                      Have you stepped out to China? If you return, I’ll teach you jargon. laughing
                      Teacher, you did not grow a windbag.
                      1. Andrey NM
                        Andrey NM 28 March 2017 19: 30
                        +1
                        Come on don't be distracted laughing
                    5. adept666
                      adept666 28 March 2017 19: 58
                      0
                      You come on don't be distracted laughing

                      Do you hang around here around the clock? I just wrote a comment and there is already an answer. Go straight from the warhead-2 scribbling marine co-fight)))
              2. Dzafdet
                Dzafdet 9 March 2017 04: 23
                0
                Normally flies over the hill! laughing Now, after 18 years, the customer suddenly asked for a payload of 2,8 tons .. tongue But what happened in 1998? It’s just that a group of Martians deployed cash flows and, under the promise of unification and a weight of 27 tons, dreamed of getting a product, but got a zilch in a container ... Now we need to increase the size of the rocket and remodel the mine in the boat, and this again is money, money ... bully
                1. adept666
                  adept666 25 March 2017 14: 18
                  0
                  Normally flies over the hill!

                  Actually, for this, it was built.
                  But what happened in 1998? Just a group of Martians deployed cash flows and, under the promise of unification and a weight of 27 tons, dreamed of receiving a product, but received a zilch in a container ...
                  Another one who believes in miracles ... But I won’t persuade, believe my dear - believe!
                  1. Dzafdet
                    Dzafdet April 20 2017 09: 17
                    0
                    That is, you will dispute the known facts? Type of initial weight of 27 tons and unification with Topol? laughing And also the statements of Solomonov that the Mace-M will change in size and have to abandon the TPK? wassat
                    1. adept666
                      adept666 April 20 2017 18: 28
                      0
                      That is, you will dispute the known facts?

                      Who knows these facts? You? Do you have access to classified information and do you know the degree of unification of poplars and maces? The fact that they have the same fuel indicates a unification of at least 30-40% (this is already a lot).
                      And also the statements of Solomonov that the Mace-M will change in size and have to abandon the TPK?
                      This is a normal design work because it is far from always possible to make a product with the specified performance characteristics and not get out of the scope. I still don’t know one project wherever I have to make reasonable compromises. Do you have any personal itch for Mr. Solomon? laughing Straight sect Railways by God laughing
                      1. Dzafdet
                        Dzafdet 1 May 2017 10: 56
                        0
                        The mace was redesigned THREE times because it did not fly out of the water. From land it flew normally, members of the commission spoke about weight. There is no fuel unification, there is unification for the elements of the third stage and the breeding unit and BB.
                        The stiffness of the mace is not enough for a normal flight, because the specialists declared a weight of 48 tons .. bully
  16. octogen
    octogen 25 August 2019 01: 08
    0
    For the competition, the Makeevtsy proposed a rocket of 47 tons, Solomon’s 35 tons. As a result, we can say that the Makeevtsy are closer to reality. And Solomon’s gang is a monstrous expense and a bunch of wasted years. The mace both flew and flies unstably. For they tried to shove the unpowered. Yes, and neither the ear nor the snout in the subject of underwater rocket science.

    Under Stalin, the wrecker of Solomon would sit in a jail.

    Not bringing Bark to the series is a monstrous sabotage. Having lost their necroins, they lost Pavlograd and fuel with aluminum hydride. Bark ended up pulling 8 goals instead of 10 design goals. But this had to be done. The rocket was 70% ready. They slaughtered Bark ($ 1 billion minimum expenses), reset the "water carriers" (6 billion at least 2 billion + 2-3 billions of infrastructure for them and their downtime), redesigned Borei (the price of the issue cannot be estimated). All this thanks to Solomonov and his lobby in Moscow. Glory to the pest!


    Oh, yes, the game of "peas" of 100-150 kt with the filing of Solomonov is also nonsense. Mace warheads are not capable of severely destroying American cities with huge one-story suburbs.