Military Review

Black Holes and Red Lines

118
It becomes clear: nuclear war is rational and in it, with proper preparation and the right choice of method of conduct, you can win, even with huge losses. But the win is colossal - world domination.


In the “hot” (and what is especially dangerous - bad) heads of transnational or American elites, the idea of ​​trying their luck, being on the verge of an economic and political collapse, may well arise. Moreover, all the levers of pressure, including brute and soft power, they have already applied in full and suffered a collapse.

The consequences will be disastrous. In particular, today Russian influence in the Near and Middle East is intensively replacing the American one. The Western establishment has only a nuclear trump card. And the new US administration intends to use it. President Trump has decided to build up nuclear forces. It is likely that the Americans will withdraw from the START-3 treaties (it is declared unprofitable for the USA) and INFs (the refusal of it is justified by alleged violations by Russia, while the USA, under the guise of territorial missile defense, creates the infrastructure for deploying the KDBM and medium-range missiles ).

We recognize that the threat of nuclear war is growing and we will have to fend off it. And this can be done only if the SNF is guaranteed to cause unacceptable losses to the aggressor even in the most unfavorable conditions for Russia - in a retaliatory strike. At the same time, they will retain the potential for deterring other countries possessing nuclear weapons and ambitions.

To be able to do so, our strategic nuclear forces must have a high combat stability, both in opposition to the use of a conventional arsenal, and with a transition to murderous arguments - a “disarming strike” aimed at the destruction of the nuclear-missile forces. Many believe that strategic missile submarine cruisers (SSBN) possess the most necessary qualities, since it is virtually impossible to reveal their position during combat patrols according to intelligence data, in particular, space patrols.

In order to understand how reliably the combat sustainability of the SSBN is ensured at the time of the use of its nuclear weapons, let us estimate the duration of military operations using only conventional means. During this period, the main task of our strategists is to preserve the ability to deliver the main attack. From the experience of the wars that the United States waged against large states with full-fledged armed forces - Yugoslavia and Iraq, it is known that at the first stage there was a struggle for air supremacy. Failure would force the aggressor to abandon the escalation of hostilities or move to more effective means to decisively defeat the enemy's air force and air defense force. And this is only a nuclear weapon, the possibility of which in such a situation was repeatedly stated by the US military and politicians. During the first air offensive operation (VNO), the task of winning air supremacy was not solved, and the US Army proceeded to the 20 – 30-day campaign, which included two or three or more VNOs with systematic combat in the interim.

In the war with Russia, probably, the initial alignment will be the same. The transition to the use of nuclear weapons will be justified either by the obvious preparation of the Russian Armed Forces for the use of strategic nuclear forces as a result of the defeat of the general-purpose forces, or by the proximity of their defeat after the failure of the first operations. Let’s take the 15 – 20 days into this and accept this time limit to assess the feasibility of maintaining the SSBF combat capability of the Russian Federation.

Black Holes and Red Lines


The autonomy of our underwater cruisers (as well as other classes of submarines) significantly exceeds 15–20 days. In this case, the presence of strategists in the bases, provided that the enemy will deliver the most powerful blows aviation and CRBD specifically for naval harbors, impractical. So all combat-ready submarine cruisers will be put on combat patrol.

The Russian fleet 13 SSBN with 212 PU: six 667BDRM projects having 16 (96 in total) PU with ballistic missiles R-29RMU2 "Sineva" and P-29RMU2.1 "Liner" (these ships are the basis of the Syndrome). (for 667 P-16Р each), three new submarines of the 29 "Borey" project with the P-955 "Mace" in service. This newest rocket has a significantly lower throwing weight than the P-30 of both versions (29 tons versus 1,16), which significantly limits the total power of its nuclear potential. And in the retaliatory strike, the main task will be the defeat of squares, rather than point targets, as with the preemptive "disarming" and "decapitating". In addition to these ships, the Russian Navy has a strategic strategic missile submarine (TRPKSN) of the 2,8UM Dmitry Donskoy project, upgraded to test (and accordingly use) the Bulava R-941 missiles with 30 launchers. All XNUMBDRM as well as 20UM and one 667 are in the Northern Fleet. The rest serve in the Pacific.

Getting lost in shallow water

To assess the combat sustainability of the SSBN, it is important to determine the likely areas of their combat patrols. It is easy to do, knowing the composition of our forces, which can be used to protect the underwater strategists, the features of the military-geographical characteristics of the seas and ocean zones, as well as the antisubmarine capabilities of the enemy. Immediately exclude the deep-water areas of the far zone. Here, to search for submarines, there are effective means of the infrasonic range: the stationary underwater observation system SOSUS and the ship stations that use TACTAS flexible, long towed acoustic antennas. It’s unrealistic to ensure the stability of our SSBNs with heterogeneous fleet forces there. Hold on in these areas for more than a few days since the beginning of the war no chance.



The shallow water of the adjacent seas in high latitudes remains. On the coast of Kara there is a military infrastructure, it is mastered by the Russian Navy. This area can be used as a combat patrol area for SSBNs. In the Barents Sea, we exclude the western part, where intensive military operations of the Russian Navy and NATO naval forces led by the United States will unfold. There remains the eastern part and the areas adjacent to our coast.

Further, the seas and zones poorly mastered by the navy and with an underdeveloped military infrastructure. Here, the actions of strategists are unlikely for reasons of navigational safety. There are also areas of the Arctic Ocean in which both our and the American fleet are active. To ensure combat stability, they are very beneficial. However, problems with the organization of communications with submarines, the choice of a place for the use of weapons, navigation difficulties associated with the long movement under the ice, narrow the possible areas of action of our strategists and covering the submarines.

In the area of ​​responsibility of the Pacific Fleet, the only profitable combat patrol area will be the relatively shallow Okhotsk Sea, which is actually the inland sea of ​​Russia, which allows for the creation of a highly effective defense system of submarine nuclear weapons carriers.

It can be assumed that four or five strategists will begin to operate in the Barents Sea, in the western part of the Kara Sea one or two and one or two submarines under the ice of the Arctic Ocean. All five SSBNs of the Pacific Fleet will probably be deployed in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.

Hunting hunters

The destruction of Russian SSBNs will be a priority for the enemy, and for this he will allocate significant forces. Against the submarines of the Northern Fleet, the US Navy will be able to set up two or three AUGs, two or three KUGs and 15 – 17 nuclear submarines. They will receive support from 50 and more tactical aircraft from airfields in Northern Norway (given their operational capacity).

From the beginning of battles to gaining air superiority over the Barents Sea and Novaya Zemlya, the enemy can use (based on calculations and the need to solve other tasks) up to nine submarines (4 – 5 in the Barents Sea, 1 – 2 - in Kara, 1) to combat SSBNs. –2 - in the Arctic Ocean). In the event of the defeat of the main forces of the SF, it is likely that another two or three submarines and one or two CPUGs will be involved in two or three destroyers of the Orly Burk type. It is also supposed to carry out up to two or three sorties a day by the base patrol aircraft (BPA) from the airfields of Northern Norway (in particular, from the Anneya airbase).

The Russian Pacific Fleet will confront 3 and part of the 7 of the United States operational fleet. In this theater, the Americans can deploy up to five aircraft carriers, 30 – 40 missile cruisers, destroyers and frigates of URO, up to 25 nuclear submarines, up to 50 amphibious assault ships of various classes, an expeditionary division of marines, up to 60 anti-submarine aircraft. Plus up to 15 strategic aircraft and up to 100 tactical aviation.

Japan, a loyal ally of the United States, is likely to take an active part in the war against Russia. This means XDUMX modern low-noise non-nuclear submarines, 16 helicopter carriers, 4 destroyers and URO frigates, more 50 minesweepers, 30 large and around 6 small landing craft and boats, 70 rocket boats, about 6, anti-personnel, anti-submarines, reconnaissance units, and holographic formations. home base. The Japanese Navy will support up to 100 tactical aircraft.

From these forces, a group will be created to destroy our SSBNs in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Its composition, based on the operational capacity of the area, may include at least four to five US submarines and two to three Japanese non-nuclear submarines. In the event of the successful suppression of the Russian Aerospace Forces grouping in Kamchatka, Sakhalin and the Kuril island zone, the enemy can attract the BPA with a resource of six to seven sorties per day to destroy our submarines. At the same time, with the 9 – 12 day from the start of the hostilities, after solving the main operational tasks, the enemy grouping in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is likely to increase 1 – 2 by the US and 1 – 2 by Japanese submarines.

Both in the zone of responsibility of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation and in the Pacific, minefields will be actively used to destroy our SSBNs both in combat patrol areas and on deployment routes of Russian submarines.

It should be noted that NATO members are likely to use the most modern Virginia submarines to destroy the SSBN, which is determined by the importance of the task, as well as by the desire to minimize the loss of their submarines from the forces ensuring the combat stability of our submarine cruisers.

It is possible to assess the capabilities of Russian SSBNs and US submarines on the basis of data on noise and energy potential of hydro-acoustic complexes. This information is closed. But taking into account the fact that in terms of noise and the capabilities of the GAK in our fleet, only the penultimate generation submarines - the 877 projects (received the respectful nickname “Black Hole”) and 971 — were equal to the American ones, we can say that the 80's ships of release (NPS projects 667 and 941) are significantly inferior to the enemy in the detection range, that is, in a duel they have very little chance of success. The new 955 “Borey” SSBN, one generation with the American “Virginia”, have a comparable mutual detection range and, accordingly, are almost equal in combat with some American superiority. Our submarines are incapable of effectively fighting anti-submarine aircraft, since they do not have reliable air defense and air reconnaissance equipment. Having no anti-ship missiles, Russian submarines can only count on torpedo weapons in the battle with the enemy’s KPUG, which will force them to move closer and enter the affected area with anti-submarine-armed weapons.

We state: in a battle, Russian SSBNs are at a disadvantage and their combat stability can be ensured mainly due to their secrecy. However, the size of the possible areas of their patrols is very limited. Therefore, without cover by other forces of the fleet, combat stability cannot be ensured.

Since the main threat to our SSBNs is created by enemy submarines, the basis of the defense system of combat patrol areas is antisubmarine forces. At the Federation Council of the Russian Federation it is up to two KPUG (from ships of the near-sea zone of the corvette class and small anti-submarine ships), three to four nuclear and four to five diesel submarines, four to five anti-submarine aircraft. Mine-fences can be placed on threatened areas.

In the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, it is possible to create an anti-submarine group consisting of two multi-purpose submarines of the 971 project, three to five diesel submarines of the 877 project, one CPUG (2 – 3 ship structure), six to seven DPLS Tu-142М and four to five Il-38. In the straits between the islands of the Kuril ridge can be put minefields.

Cruisers need to cover up

Calculations show that, by the end of the first ten days of combat operations, our SSBNs will be able to maintain, on average, all 0,7 – 0,75 areas in the Federation Council of the Russian Federation and 0,6 – 0,65 in the Pacific Ocean in the SF zone. That is, by the end of the first decade of battles, we may lose three or four atomic bomber carriers. These are 48 – 64 MBR. By the end of the second decade, the combat stability of our submarines is falling. In the zone of the Federation Council - to 0,3 – 0,4, on the Pacific Fleet - to 0,25 – 0,3. By the likely start of a nuclear war, we will lose up to nine or ten of our thirteen atomic cruisers. In fact, the PKK group will be crushed. That is, the available forces of the fleet to ensure the combat stability of our SSBNs is unrealistic.

And what can we do with the American submarines of the Ohio? Note: the conditions for ensuring their combat stability are incomparably better. Patrol areas are controlled by the hydroacoustic anti-submarine SOSUS, reliably covered by coastal defense forces and the zone PLO system. In a duel with our "Pikes-B" modernized "Ohio" give way to nothing. At the same time, our anti-submarine forces have little chance of destroying at least one American SSBN.

Obviously, it is necessary to take emergency measures to increase the combat stability of our nuclear-powered cruisers. The first and obvious direction is the buildup of ship fleets. The Northern Fleet must have 20 – 25 atomic multipurpose and 30 – 35 non-nuclear submarines, 20 – 25 surface ships of the ocean zone, anti-submarine 40 and near-sea naval 50, along with one coastal anti-submarine aviation regiment, and anti-submarine anti-submarine anti-submarine anti-submarine, and against anti-submarine, anti-submarine and anti-submarine 20 20 25 20 25 atomic multi-purpose The composition of the Pacific Fleet should include at least 60 atomic multi-purpose and 3 – 3,5 non-nuclear submarines, XNUMX – XNUMX surface ships of the ocean zone, anti-XNUMX anti-submarine and the same mines of the near-sea zone, one coastal fighter and anti-submarine aviation regiment, anti-submarine helicopter regiment. Such an increase in fleets will significantly (approximately XNUMX – XNUMX times) increase the grouping of SSBN coverings. On both it is advisable to significantly increase the stock of anti-submarine mines, especially broadband ones. The deployment of our atomic cruisers to combat stability will significantly increase their deployment at the borders and in the possible areas of their combat patrols of positional and stationary underwater observation systems. All these measures will reduce the loss of SSBNs in combat with conventional weapons to an acceptable level - within five to ten percent (that is, no more than one submarine missile carrier).

It is clear that it is impossible to quickly increase the naval composition of our fleet after almost a quarter of a pogrom. Therefore, we recognize that the military-technical and operational measures alone do not solve the task of ensuring the combat sustainability of the SSBN. Military-political measures are necessary, and one of them could be the declaration by a red nuclear line of the destruction of even one of our submarine nuclear cruisers. That is, to officially declare that this will be considered as an unacceptable blow to our strategic nuclear forces, after which one thing remains - the transition to full-scale use of nuclear weapons.

It should be noted that the combat stability of mobile ground-based missile systems may be significantly lower than SSBNs. All stationary objects of strategic deterrence forces are extremely vulnerable to destruction by long-range high-precision weapons in conventional equipment: mine launchers of ICBMs, airfields of strategic aviation with aircraft on them, elements of control systems of strategic nuclear forces, ANN and ABM. The only exceptions are combat railway missile systems due to secrecy and mobility, but they are not in Russia yet. Therefore, the provision on the “red line” should be extended to other components of the SNF. It should be inscribed in the Military Doctrine of Russia.

The reason for the conclusion of the death of a submarine can be considered to be absenteeism of a planned communication session two or three times. With the establishment of the loss of the first missile carrier, Russia must declare its determination to use nuclear weapons if the anti-submarine forces of the enemy are not withdrawn from the areas where our SSBNs are located, and demonstrate this determination with a demonstrative nuclear attack on deserted areas, for example, areas near the North Pole. If the US does not respond to this step (which is highly unlikely), Russia should be ready to deliver a full-fledged preemptive strike. If the enemy withdraws his anti-submarine forces, the threat of the death of our SSBNs will be largely eliminated.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/36550
118 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. yuriy55
    yuriy55 6 May 2017 05: 25
    +6
    Itself surfaced ...


    Someone is pushing us stubbornly into the abyss. The problem is that so far the United States has not been able to prove the effectiveness of its massive missile attacks and even show its "jagging" against a "weak, isolated" country with nuclear weapons. I don’t think that even this whole Codla will think of attacking Russia. Even the worms have a self-preservation instinct ...
    1. Finches
      Finches 6 May 2017 09: 40
      +24
      All that a soldier needs to know about a "rational" nuclear war - You need to keep the machine gun in outstretched arms so that molten metal does not drip onto boots and spoil state property! laughing

      But to be serious - we need another ten years without decreasing, but rather increasing the rate of armament, so that we reach the level when the American elites wake up with a sense of self-preservation ... Now, for now, it is crushed by a sense of its exclusivity and absolute superiority! Our actions in Ukraine, and most importantly in Syria, were a very correct and timely political step to remind the Americans a bit that there are Armed Forces in Russia capable of responding even to those who think that they are behind a puddle ... - and this is the military-political Russia's action pushing the whole world, all of humanity away from the red line of nuclear hell! This is not understood only by the liberals bought by the West and outright traitors, such as Navalny and Kasparov, lugging with stupid posters: "Hands off Ukraine!", "Hands off Syria!" , well, and still just all sorts of fools, offended by God, such as Makarevich or Akhidzhakova ...
      1. LeftPers
        LeftPers 8 May 2017 13: 22
        +2
        Will these “ten more years” give us?
        1. Barmal
          Barmal 8 May 2017 15: 38
          0
          these here may not give us anything for "another ten years."
          1. Basarev
            Basarev 9 May 2017 22: 07
            0
            But actually - the best solution for the world that can prevent the use of nuclear weapons by the Americans can be only one. Surrender voluntarily. Americans are not sadists and will not torture and mock the already defeated enemy. At one time, Germany and Japan had the guts to give up - and they did not fail. Only the supposedly won the Soviet Union won the war. Now, from the future, it is clear that the USSR lost the Second World War. Flags over buildings, processes and prohibitions of ideologies mean nothing. Only the actual standard of living and place in the world division of labor.
            1. vadson
              vadson 9 May 2017 22: 57
              0
              Katz suggests surrendering ...
            2. Barmal
              Barmal 10 May 2017 10: 56
              0
              Quote: Basarev
              But actually - the best solution for the world that can prevent the use of nuclear weapons by the Americans can be only one. Surrender voluntarily. Americans are not sadists and will not torture and mock the already defeated enemy. At one time, Germany and Japan had the guts to give up - and they did not fail. Only the supposedly won the Soviet Union won the war. Now, from the future, it is clear that the USSR lost the Second World War. Flags over buildings, processes and prohibitions of ideologies mean nothing. Only the actual standard of living and place in the world division of labor.

              I want to check how much Americans are non-Sadists? Come on. There are no fools.

              Could Hitler save too? Where is the evidence that the German SS men did not have sadistic tendencies? If you look at the documentary pictures before the WWII, there are no signs of sadistic inclinations among people marching along the streets of American cities with clearly marked flags! But, they turned out to be! Something bad and illogical in your proposal is undoubtedly present.
  2. Ararat
    Ararat 6 May 2017 05: 25
    +14
    "In particular, today Russian influence in the Near and Middle East is intensively replacing American"
    Strongly disagree with this excerpt from the article. If Russia was able to sell weapons to Iraq, Egypt, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia and is struggling to save Assad, it does not mean that US influence has suddenly diminished or disappeared. Iraq, SA, Oman, the UAE, Kuwait and Egypt are in the sharp grip of the United States and Russia is not able to replace it
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 6 May 2017 10: 09
      +16
      Quote: Ararat
      If Russia was able to sell weapons to Iraq, Egypt, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia

      If the United States helped eliminate the loyal Musharraf and Mubarak ...
      If the United States participates in theft by Kurds of oil from the legitimate authorities of Iraq ...
      If the United States turned Iran into an enemy due to phantom pains associated with the events during the Islamic revolution there, inspired, incidentally, by the British ...
      If noted in a failed coup attempt in Turkey ...
      If they are supported by the deeply corrupt authorities of Afghanistan, with which everyone is dissatisfied, and not just the Taliban ...
      If they could not keep in obedience the “controlled chaos” organized by them in Syria, which led to the emergence of powerful uncontrolled terrorist organizations ...
      If support Kurdish terrorism ...
      If, if, if ...

      US lost in BV the main thing for those places confidence. Any today's US ally is well aware: "The Americans will surrender me without hesitation because of the slightest momentary benefit"
      1. Ararat
        Ararat 8 May 2017 16: 13
        +2
        And because of this, Russia's influence has increased in this region? What can Russia give to the Gulf countries besides weapons? NOTHING!!!
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 6 May 2017 10: 29
      +9
      Quote: Ararat
      Egypt sit in the sharp clutches of the USA

      Egypt is a great example.
      Only there is not a "vice" there is a machine milking machine. Through which the Egyptians milk the United States.

      What happened after the counter-revolutionary military coup? That's right, the Americans, pouting their cheeks, began to demand "democracy" and the return of the "legally elected" Islamists to power. As a lever of pressure, the cessation of military assistance. Cunning Egyptians began military-technical contacts with Moscow. Frightened Washington resumed payments of yasak ...

      Result: they did not achieve their goal, having offended the "democrats" in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who financed the "Arab spring" in Egypt, and ruined relations with the Egyptian authorities. In passing, showing all local players "you can ride on us."

      A direct example of a "firm and far-sighted" US policy on BV
      1. Ararat
        Ararat 8 May 2017 16: 14
        +2
        Again, I await the growing influence of Russia. Are you going to list and evade all the US goeha from the question?
  3. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 6 May 2017 06: 31
    +8
    Sivkova throws from left to right. A few days ago, he confidently wrote that there would be no retaliation, for the elite would not.
    And then on those arrived, he is already building new plans.
    1. ava09
      ava09 6 May 2017 07: 15
      +10
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      Sivkova throws from left to right. A few days ago, he confidently wrote that there would be no retaliation, for the elite would not.
      And then on those arrived, he is already building new plans.

      Someone throws from left to right, someone is constantly sitting there. Do you seriously believe that Sivkov was building a monument and not writing an article? The process is alive, new circumstances have appeared. It is only in our power that the reactionaries are old and their bourgeois assistants are apologists.
      1. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 6 May 2017 08: 36
        +9
        nuclear war is rational and in it, with proper preparation and the right choice of the method of warfare, it can be defeated, even with huge losses

        But do not you think, dear, that with such a formulation of the question there are doubts about the adequacy of the author. The mere definition that "nuclear war is rational" creates in the minds of readers (who is still adequate) the simplest thought - the author is either a provocateur or not quite a distant person.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 6 May 2017 10: 35
          +8
          You have read the article inattentively. The key phrase in the paragraph about "nuclear war is rational"

          In the "hot" (and what is especially dangerous - bad) heads of transnational or American elites, the idea of ​​trying their luck, being on the verge of an economic and political collapse, may well be born.
        2. NordUral
          NordUral 6 May 2017 12: 22
          +7
          Read carefully about for whom this war is rational.
        3. ava09
          ava09 6 May 2017 17: 39
          +4
          Quote: rotmistr60
          It becomes clear: nuclear war is rational and in it, with proper preparation and the right choice of method of conduct, you can win, even with huge losses. But the win is colossal - world domination.

          In the “hot” (and what is especially dangerous - bad) heads of transnational or American elites, the idea of ​​trying their luck, being on the verge of an economic and political collapse, may well arise. Moreover, all the levers of pressure, including brute and soft power, they have already applied in full and suffered a collapse.

          You did not understand the context, or maybe the author missed the source, in any case, Sivkov says this is a likely enemy:
          (c) It becomes clear: nuclear war is rational and in it, with proper preparation and the correct choice of the method of warfare, it can be defeated, even with huge losses. But the gain is colossal - world domination.
          In the "hot" (and what is especially dangerous - bad) heads of transnational or American elites, the idea of ​​trying their luck, being on the verge of an economic and political collapse, may well be born. Moreover, all pressure levers, including brute and soft power, they have already used in full and have failed. (C)
        4. Kudrevkn
          Kudrevkn 7 May 2017 10: 06
          +4
          I absolutely agree with you: the next pearl of Sivkov is BSK (Bullshit) !? This is not "analytics", this is complete nonsense!
          1. Ascetic
            Ascetic 7 May 2017 10: 38
            +7
            Quote: KudrevKN
            I absolutely agree with you: the next pearl of Sivkov is BSK (Bullshit) !? This is not "analytics", this is complete nonsense!

            Especially this
            In the war with Russia, probably, the initial alignment will be the same. The transition to the use of nuclear weapons will be justified either by the obvious preparation of the Russian Armed Forces for the use of strategic nuclear forces as a result of the defeat of the general-purpose forces, or by the proximity of their defeat after the failure of the first operations. Let’s take the 15 – 20 days into this and accept this time limit to assess the feasibility of maintaining the SSBF combat capability of the Russian Federation.

            To begin with, the author needs to read the military doctrine of the Russian Federation in the generally accessible version in order to carry such nonsense ... I’m silent about the classified plans for combat use or the Combat Charter of the Strategic Missile Forces bully
            Even the release of missile defense destroyers on the battle lines and the concentration of the AUG will already become an occasion to start a single frightening or demonstrative nuclear weapons at any object of the General Staff's choice BEFORE active combat operations with conventional weapons
            1. Stena
              Stena 8 May 2017 11: 36
              0
              Quote: Ascetic
              Even the release of missile defense destroyers on the battle lines and the concentration of the AUG will already become an occasion to start a single frightening or demonstrative nuclear weapons at any object of the General Staff's choice BEFORE active combat operations with conventional weapons

              It's right. But it is also true that at the slightest opportunity (for example, a fully deployed missile defense system or the inability to inflict critical damage on the enemy), a report on the possibility of a nuclear strike will fall on the table of the head of the general staff.
              However, among other things, the possibility of striking from the Arctic, directly from under the ice, was not considered.
              In general, while we are sitting, we are fixing the primus, we are not touching anyone.
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 6 May 2017 09: 02
        +4
        Quote: ava09
        The process is live, new circumstances

        Of course, new circumstances appeared. Ivashev overtook with his article Sivkova and tore off a bunch of applause! And Sivkov is a whole hydro colonel. not Colonel General! So the hydro colonel began the 3 world! bully
        1. cost
          cost 6 May 2017 23: 14
          +3
          It becomes clear: nuclear war is rational and in it, with proper preparation and the right choice of method of conduct, you can win, even with huge losses. But the win is colossal - world domination.

          World domination over what? Above the global Chernobyl zone? Is this a huge win? Let Konstantin Sivkov, before writing such opuses, take a tent, canned food, and for a month with his family will rush to rest in the Chernobyl zone. Nobody will disturb him there. Take a break from civilization without communication with the outside world, and health at the same time correct. It will be a complete master. A huge win.
      3. Lycan
        Lycan 8 May 2017 12: 53
        0
        Exactly!
        The process is not carved in stone. Circumstances are changing the picture due to the political situation and intelligence.
  4. barbiturate
    barbiturate 6 May 2017 06: 33
    +1
    You just need to rely not on the “strategic” nuclear submarines, but on the ground component. Well, to hide the missile carriers under the ice, to increase the patrol time there, it is also imperative to deploy their stationary detection systems in order to fully control the situation in several important areas. I don’t understand why the Soviet Union did not deploy such a system, such as American SOSUS, only to cover its areas of deployment of missile nuclear submarines. Even the most quiet submarines will not overcome such a system unnoticed. Recently, an example of testing an American FOSS (underwater lighting system) was cited - a Virginia-type submarine was discovered at a distance of 30 km! An excellent result and this is a mobile system delivered to a certain area by a submarine, while a stationary one can easily be even more sensitive.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Vladimir Postnikov
        Vladimir Postnikov 6 May 2017 13: 51
        +3
        Quote: rudolff
        as it were, the EGSONPO program (a unified state system for lighting the surface and underwater conditions) is being implemented. In fact, today, except for its individual elements, the horse did not lie there.

        Some element of some system was created in Okeanpribor. I give a link, since it is related to the topic of this article.
        https://topwar.ru/105214-promo-proekt-polyarnyy-m
        arshrut-vskolyhnul-rossiyskoe-podvodnoe-soobsches
        tvo.html
        But, this is only an element / component. Now it is necessary to establish mass production of these elements, which then need to be weaved into a network and to manage this network. The keyword is "required." The real situation with the Arctic FOSS is known in Oceanopribor and Moscow Region. They know, but they will not say.
    2. YUG64
      YUG64 6 May 2017 19: 48
      +3
      Under the ice, this is right ... But on the whole, it is necessary - and it is necessary - to develop the direction that the enemy is most afraid of - it will be able to catch hot heads at the right time ... And most of all Americans are afraid of our BZHRK ... Actually, because the best friends of our "partners" leaked them ...
      1. soul
        soul 7 May 2017 00: 55
        +2
        Americans are afraid of our BZHRK

        Here's another idea: River missile systems, rivers, we have the most on the planet. They’ll look from the satellite - who’s going there, HZ? Is it a barge or a tanker?
        1. YUG64
          YUG64 7 May 2017 08: 04
          0
          This is already ... Launchers in standard cargo containers .. You can put it on any live. Googly Club-k. But it works on ground and surface targets, not strategic ...
        2. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 7 May 2017 09: 13
          0
          There are really many rivers, but in the winter they freeze and the barge freezes into ice. There remains the Caspian Sea, there is complete expanse, only to shoot at the Americans is impossible - far away. But Europe can be got, just add a little range to calibers. Indeed, several hundred calibers can be pushed onto one barge, and this is not prohibited by any agreements. Why ours do not, I do not understand, probably because of poverty.
  5. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 6 May 2017 06: 44
    +7
    There will be no such 12-15 days for “buildup”; everything will begin and end within one day. Russia has virtually no layered missile defense (unless its elements are near Moscow). Complexes of the S-300-400 type are actually no missile defense systems and there are few of them. Russia has virtually no rain protection from thousands of nuclear warheads of the "worst" partners. Therefore, they will strike first and without warning. Russia’s retaliatory strike will not reach its goal because of the layered missile defense of the United States, Russian single submarines will be instantly destroyed by the Americans who constantly accompany them. The only thing that Russia can oppose is something extraordinary dooming the whole world to a "universal" catastrophe - something like the notorious "Status".
    1. Niccola Mack
      Niccola Mack 6 May 2017 09: 06
      +16
      Russia has virtually no layered missile defense (unless its elements are near Moscow).

      It really is not in the USA either - in the next 30-40 years it is not able to bring down any tangible number of ICBM warheads. All that journalists say about the filing of the military is a chatter. Modern missile defense is effective only against single launches.
      And the northern direction (from where all the main land-based Russian ICBMs will fly) is generally bad.
      In any case, in a global nuclear war, the portrait of the winner will most likely look like this:
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 6 May 2017 09: 45
      +14
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Russia’s retaliation will not reach its goal due to echeloned US missile defense

      what Here's the catch ...
      The main component of the US national missile defense system is the ground ballistic missile interception system in the middle part of the trajectory, known as the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GBMD). This complex consists of an early warning and tracking radar system that tracks the movement of targets in outer space

      At the moment, the GBMD complex is the only missile defense component capable of intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles. The range of the complex is de facto limited only by the capabilities of space tracking radars, and with the introduction of a mobile sea-based radar, the complex has acquired the potential ability to hit space objects anywhere in the world

      BUT.....
      Due to existing restrictions, the complex is able to hit only monoblock ballistic missiles (plans to create a cluster interceptor to defeat multiple warheads were canceled in 2009).

      At the same time, the Soviet-Russian R-36M2 Voyevoda missile can carry from 1 to 16 warheads, the RT-2ПМ2 Topol-M has 1 warhead and from 15 to 20 false, PC-24 Xars - units while combat units still have the audacity to maneuver. Well, for an appetizer X - 3 with an unknown flight range!
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Russia’s retaliation will not reach its goal due to echeloned US missile defense

      Well my friend is not so smooth in the Danish kingdom ..
      Russian state media reported that they have information about the launch vehicle, which is described as "a new Russian long-range intercept and space defense missile system." This weapon "was developed as part of the Nudol experimental design project," one of the state news agencies in Russia reported in 2014.

      Good luck in the fighting hi
    3. yuriy55
      yuriy55 6 May 2017 09: 53
      +5
      In that case, what are you spraying with saliva on the eve of the holiday? Frightened “Poplar" rain.
      You are the same liar as your strategists who have not won a single strategic battle. Talking with you is wasting time. Want to experience the claws of a Russian Bear on your filthy skin? Or so you will shout to us from across the ocean ...
    4. Finches
      Finches 6 May 2017 10: 06
      +7
      Monster_Fat

      I said - a sense of one’s own superiority and exclusivity ... Even here on the site ... laughing
    5. TOR2
      TOR2 6 May 2017 19: 43
      +5
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Complexes of the S-300-400 type are actually no missile defense systems and there are few of them.

      And who claimed that they are? In fact, they have always been air defense systems.
    6. DenZ
      DenZ 6 May 2017 22: 02
      +3
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Russia has virtually no rain protection from thousands of nuclear warheads of the "worst" partners

      Have you revised Hollywood movies? All US warheads achieve the goal and the Russian no winked Enchanting. smile
  6. Olgovich
    Olgovich 6 May 2017 06: 53
    +14
    Everyone understands that a major non-nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia will inevitably lead to a nuclear one.
    Therefore, when planning such a use of nuclear weapons will be laid down initially.

    And with the obvious inevitability of this, Russia must strike first. Story gave her the right on this: no June 22, August 41st and 1st of August 14th should not be repeated.
  7. ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 6 May 2017 07: 29
    +5
    I strongly disagree with the author. Winning a nuclear war is impossible in principle.

    declaring a red nuclear line the destruction of even one of our submarine nuclear-powered cruiser


    How does the enemy know what kind of submarine is under him and who exactly is he going to drown?

    It is clear that the Americans have records of the noise of our submarines, and we have theirs, but this is a very unreliable criterion, especially in real combat situations. It's one thing when a reconnaissance ship sneaks up, goes on the sly for the submarine and is tracking. And it is quite another when several submarines and one-two dozen surface ships are spinning in the sea. Everyone put interference, dodges suddenly, launches noise simulators, put pressure on the enemy's electronics.

    In such conditions, it is sometimes impossible to distinguish the enemy from his own, and you want the enemy to unmistakably understand the classes of our submarines, it is unreal!
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 6 May 2017 11: 14
        +5
        Quote: rudolff
        It is more difficult to establish this contact.

        laughing Nooo Rudolph, it’s more difficult to save the start button from the playful arms of a crafty crucian! After all, salabon - what is it? After all, he always wants to twist or push something and God forbid he wanders into the central post unattended, then the Americans certainly won’t have time to understand why it was immediately lit by 17 suns above their homeland bully !
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 6 May 2017 12: 02
            +4
            Quote: rudolff
            so also at the reception of the order is not a senior officer, but some sailor !!! Horror!

            Man, well, here you are distracted from sad thoughts bully I am very happy about it good
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 6 May 2017 09: 47
      +5
      Quote: ivanovbg
      And it’s completely different when several submarines and one or two dozen surface ships spin in the sea. Each put interference, dodges suddenly, launches noise emitters, put pressure on the enemy’s electronics.

      Wow, what kind of porridge you brewed, well, the Jutland battle is direct good
    3. KaPToC
      KaPToC 7 May 2017 00: 04
      +2
      Quote: ivanovbg
      I strongly disagree with the author. Winning a nuclear war is impossible in principle.

      As much as possible. There will be a nuclear war, many nations will die out, but the survivors will take their place. People will build cities more isolated from the external environment than they are now, it is these people who will begin to master the solar system, because after a nuclear war the Earth will be as unsuitable for life as other planets and satellites of the solar system.
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 7 May 2017 09: 31
        +2
        Yes, many will die out, but not all. Australia, if it is quiet, then nothing will fly to them. Also, Argentina and Brazil are far from a potential theater of operations.
        In Europe, the population density is the highest, this is an excellent target for our missiles and they know this, but they are not the ones to decide. Unfortunately, it will be worse for us, but we will not get used to, die, so with the music.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 7 May 2017 12: 51
          0
          Quote: Fan-Fan
          Yes, many will die out, but not all. Australia, if it is quiet, then nothing will fly to them. Also, Argentina and Brazil are far from a potential theater of operations.

          Firstly - yes - the mutual destruction of Russia and the United States in nuclear fire will give a chance to take on the first roles the other poles of power on our planet - this is another deterrent.
          Secondly - about survivors, I had in mind precisely in Russia and the USA
  8. mr.redpartizan
    mr.redpartizan 6 May 2017 08: 01
    +7
    In the case of another attempt by the “partners” to bring democracy to Russian barbarians, the use of nuclear weapons should proceed immediately, and not in two weeks. As soon as the first Tomahawks are discovered in our airspace, orders should be issued for the use of strategic nuclear forces in the United States and its allies.
    We should leave START and begin to increase the nuclear arsenal to 10-15 thousand deployed charges and several thousand carriers. A huge number of launchers will make it physically impossible to simultaneously destroy them with precision weapons, which will mean only one thing - a crushing retaliatory or retaliatory strike by thousands of nuclear warheads. For the successful implementation of such measures, a perfect SPRN is required, which will almost instantly detect the mass launch of enemy missiles.
    1. dauria
      dauria 6 May 2017 09: 58
      +3
      We should leave START and begin to increase the nuclear arsenal to 10-15 thousand deployed charges and several thousand carriers.


      The Chinese will do it for us. And now it’s only possible for us to choose the right ally and “throw” him in time. Stop dreaming about the armed forces without a population and economy. After the exchange of US-RF attacks, China immediately becomes a world leader. Do you think Americans don’t understand this? And time is working on China now.
      1. mr.redpartizan
        mr.redpartizan 6 May 2017 10: 17
        +5
        We have people, and the economy, and resources. You just need to correctly manage this, and not play according to the IMF's imposed rules. A nuclear missile weapon surpasses any other in terms of cost / effectiveness. If even one Yars PGRK costs like ten T-14 Armata tanks, then it’s more profitable to make a couple of hundred Yars than a couple thousand Armat. The combat equipment of a four-warhead rocket of 300 ct each can literally wipe out a million-plus city from the face of the earth for 11 thousand kilometers from the launch site, destroying millions of people and causing damage in the trillions of dollars. And this is just one missile reaching the target ...
        1. dauria
          dauria 6 May 2017 10: 32
          +3
          destroying millions of people and causing damage in the trillions of dollars


          Well, why are you telling me these figures here? I knew them from the moment I entered the military school. As well as about 120 - 130 million people on each side. And while he served, he always remembered. And then what? Weak US and RF, and strong China at hand? Do you want to arrange a new race instead of contracts? So now it is in the hands of the United States. China and without us, the Americans are running forward, you can’t get away. And we keep parity and reasonable sufficiency for "unacceptable damage." But there is no way to drive the race itself.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 6 May 2017 11: 18
            +4
            Quote: dauria
            And we keep parity and reasonable sufficiency for "unacceptable damage." But there is no way to drive the race itself.

            I agree, a reasonable saying! drinks
        2. Tektor
          Tektor 6 May 2017 22: 14
          +2
          If even one Yars PGRK costs like ten T-14 Armata tanks, then it’s more profitable to make a couple of hundred Yars, ...
          Nuclear weapons are prohibitively expensive. Just the cost of some materials for one warhead will exceed the cost of the T-14 ... And everything else is just awful when you start to figure out the numbers. Independence is a very expensive pleasure ...
          Well, about Sivkov’s article we can only say thanks, as allows you to draw some conclusions and prepare mentally. Improvisation will be our lifesaver. Everything needs to be done exactly as our partners expect. Well, I would move our RS-26 Frontiers to my borders ... And say hello to Canberra.
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 6 May 2017 11: 16
        +3
        Quote: dauria
        And time is working on China now.

        Guys. but who doesn’t know how much is now a couple for example in Qingdao? Not. Am I just in case?
        1. dauria
          dauria 6 May 2017 23: 34
          +2
          Guys. but who doesn’t know how much is now a couple for example in Qingdao?


          good You should not go there .... In secret - they even kicked out almost all of the Jews. Even thousands of people in all of China are gone. what And nothing is shining there for our brother. And they don’t know how to drink. Not Christ, what to take. And the phrase "If vodka interferes with work, give up this job" was clearly not born to the Chinese. request
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 7 May 2017 07: 38
            +4
            Quote: dauria
            In secret - they even kicked out almost all of the Jews.

            laughing Well, my friend, they are different Jews! 9,8 of millions of Dungans live in China, and they are still Jews by the way of life relations and mental abilities. bully !
            Quote: dauria
            And they don’t know how to drink.

            what Something I probably did not drink vodka with those Chinese! My interlocutors fire water as frightened whipped bully
  9. DEPARTMENT
    DEPARTMENT 6 May 2017 08: 13
    +6
    If kneading begins, they will definitely kill us here first! .. Mentally, I always prepare for this, but there are practically no options for salvation! Although I hope that the Russian instinct of self-preservation will work, like my ancestors, and tell me how to act .. God forbid, of course, but still ..
    PS I'm not afraid for myself for my family .. hi
    1. WUA 518
      WUA 518 6 May 2017 09: 37
      +6
      Quote: DEPARTMENT
      If kneading starts, they will definitely kill us here first of all ..!

      Not si Meehan! Eun and China will help you. Hold your favorite helmet!
      1. DEPARTMENT
        DEPARTMENT 6 May 2017 10: 44
        +4
        Thank ! He laughed heartily ...))) laughing wassat crying There was a good helmet! And still failed ... good soldier Better without a helmet yet ...)))) bully
      2. Sirocco
        Sirocco 6 May 2017 17: 49
        +2
        Quote: WUA 518
        Not si Meehan! Eun and China will help you.

        All the same, I would like to get an answer to the account of the Far East, a couple of weeks ago a colleague drove a car from Vladik, and so, the Chinese say around and the representatives of Central Asia say that there will soon be no Russians left. maybe a person unnecessarily alarms, but before that he was not noticed in this. Who will confirm this information.
        Now on the topic, I won’t be guessing on the coffee grounds, but as I have said more than once, deju vu, everything goes in a circle, the cycle has not been canceled yet. The end of the 30s recalls.
        Now about Sosus, and other nyashki from the United States, if memory serves, the Americans more than once saved our submarine, and they surfaced in uncomfortable places. Maybe I'm confusing something? Strategic aviation means the same. And to wait for hiding under the melt, as the author suggests, this is not a coat. It’s like in a fight, among the Jews, the cunning and not the strong survive. (Running around the bushes looking around, with trembling knees there isn’t that) Before death, you will not breathe. Stylet, in the Bochin.
        1. Sakmagon
          Sakmagon 6 May 2017 21: 17
          +2
          "... a couple of weeks ago, a colleague drove a car from Vladik, and so, they say, they say around the Chinese, and representatives of Central Asia ...
          So he, the poor fellow, did not seem to look beyond the Green Corner (car market)! laughing Maybe he jumped into the Chinese market, for clothes. In Vladik I would just walk, I would not say stupidity ...
          1. Sirocco
            Sirocco 7 May 2017 02: 25
            0
            Quote: Sacmagon
            In Vladik I would just walk, I would not say stupidity ...

            And your answer is not stupid? Or does the cranium crush the brain? I will tell you so, the city is made up of places of mass visits of citizens, these are markets of all kinds and types. So in Ulan Ude, the places of mass visits are the same as in Vladik, and representatives of the above diasporas, like fleas on a dog, in these markets. Sometimes you don’t understand where you live. I just walked into the account, in the evening go through the center and other places of festivities, and tell us wretched))))
            1. Sakmagon
              Sakmagon 7 May 2017 21: 46
              +1
              Hamite, my dear? It seems like something is crushing you. Or is such a quick-tempered reaction the consequences of a strong fright caused by a meeting with "representatives"?
              And on the Internet, behind the "nickname" but what a brave ...
              1. Sirocco
                Sirocco 8 May 2017 13: 12
                0
                You don’t just have to blame it on your health. [Quote = Sakmagon] And on the Internet, behind a "nickname" but how daring ... [/ quote]
                Pull the amiable log from your eyes. Or is Sakmagon your real name?))) [Quote = Sakmagon] Or is such a quick-tempered reaction the consequences of a strong fright caused by a meeting with "representatives"? [/ Quote
                You are talking about this fright, ask the residents of the EU, they will tell you in more detail about the assimilation of "representatives".
                And with representatives, Cf. Asia, my relationship is better than with compatriots, since the time of service in the ranks of the SA, and you are a clear example of this.))))
                Unity, unity, respect for elders, there is something to learn from them.
                1. Sakmagon
                  Sakmagon 8 May 2017 14: 35
                  +1
                  And we are not in the EU. In my country, I get along well with all nationalities, and the questions are: "around the Chinese, and representatives of Central Asia, they say soon there will be no Russians left ..." and "... representatives of the above diasporas, like fleas on a dog, in these markets. Sometimes you don’t understand where you live ... "flew exactly from you.
                  And my, I agree, a harsh answer - this is for you for the skull box and stuff addressed to me. I did not insult you. So read your "with a sore head ..." read in front of the mirror ... hi
                  1. Sirocco
                    Sirocco 8 May 2017 17: 52
                    0
                    You don’t understand anything, sorry. You got a box for your Sarcasm, (Sarcasm is a caustic, taunting mockery of someone or something.) And I wanted to hear a normal answer to a completely adequate question. As a result, I got it. Read below on the branch. Here's how to answer the questions, not the little ones who are little. So in Sarcasm, train on cats. )))))
        2. DV Coms
          DV Coms 8 May 2017 06: 38
          +2
          Quote: Sirocco
          All the same, I would like to get an answer to the account of the Far East, a couple of weeks ago a colleague drove a car from Vladik, and so, the Chinese say around and the representatives of Central Asia say that there will soon be no Russians left.

          I’ll say for Komsomolsk-on-Amur - there are practically no Chinese at all, you can find current in the market, it is very rare on the streets. Asians and Ukrainians - yes, there are more. Asians open mostly small businesses - trade, cafes, services. Ukrainians are hired by hard workers. In Khabarovsk there are more Chinese, which is not surprising - the border is nearby. The Russians continue to leave the Far East. The villages quietly move to the cities, they leave the cities to the west of Russia, mainly to the Krasnodar Territory, Moscow, and St. Petersburg. The living standards of the Far East and the West of Russia are not comparable. We hope for a change in the situation, but so far in vain. The government’s “Hectare of the Earth” program is a taunt to the chickens.))
          1. Sirocco
            Sirocco 8 May 2017 13: 15
            +1
            Quote: DV Koms
            I’ll say for Komsomolsk-on-Amur -

            Thank you Victor, that's what I wanted to hear, not chatter.
          2. Cossack 471
            Cossack 471 9 May 2017 00: 04
            +1
            I am from the Don and we also believe that only Moscow lives in their hands renovation !!!
  10. Old26
    Old26 6 May 2017 08: 18
    +13
    Well. The number of applicants for the honorary title of Nostradamus-2017 was replenished with another character - captain of the first rank Konstantin Sivkov
    So, what do we have in the list of applicants
    1. Deputy Minister of Defense Yuri Borisov
    2. Deputy Chief of GOU General Staff Viktor Poznihir
    3. the former deputy of which there was only general Leonid Ivashov
    4. American expert and analyst, a former adviser on something there from the safety of one of the presidents of the United States, now living Paul Craig Roberts
    5. Well and koperang Konstantin Sivkov

    Damn, is spring exacerbation acting on them? From under the pen, forecasts of one another are flying worse. And with such an element of science fiction that it’s time to put them all together for the Strugatsky and Aelita Prizes. And they write, sometimes without even worrying about the authenticity of what they write. To disassemble all the broke, and this is an ignoble business. After all, they will have defenders who do not even read what their idols write. The main thing is to ask the scribbler who is “sorting” them: “And who are you? Here he is the general, assistant, caperang, and who are you?”

    But to read sometimes the nonsense that they carry there is no way. So I’ll nevertheless make out a part of what the author wrote. He is recognizable. Already in the second or third paragraph, when the numbers begin to pour in, you see - Sivkov

    So, with what did the author "make us happy"?

    Quote: Author
    The Russian fleet 13 SSBN with 212 PU: six 667BDRM projects having 16 (96 in total) PU with ballistic missiles R-29RMU2 "Sineva" and P-29RMU2.1 "Liner" (these ships are the basis of the Syndrome). (for 667 P-16Р each), three new submarines of the 29 "Borey" project with the P-955 "Mace" in service. This newest rocket has a significantly lower throwing weight than the P-30 of both versions (29 tons versus 1,16), which significantly limits the total power of its nuclear potential. And in the retaliatory strike, the main task will be the defeat of squares, rather than point targets, as with the preemptive "disarming" and "decapitating". In addition to these ships, the Russian Navy has a strategic strategic missile submarine (TRPKSN) of the 2,8UM Dmitry Donskoy project, upgraded to test (and accordingly use) the Bulava R-941 missiles with 30 launchers. All XNUMBDRM as well as 20UM and one 667 are in the Northern Fleet. The rest serve in the Pacific.

    For now, let us leave his reasoning that the performance characteristics of the Bulava are unsuitable, since it has less weight and will not be used for point targets. Let us dwell on the quantitative composition. In all materials, data exchanges, and generally in open publications, it is written about the presence of the following number of boats in the combat structure of the Russian Navy.
    = 6 boats of project 667BDRM with 16 missiles each. Total 96 SLBMs
    = 3 boats of project 667BDR with 16 missiles each. Total 48
    = 3 Project 955 boats with 48 missiles each
    In total, the Navy has 12 missile boats with 192 missiles on them (we will not go into such details that sometimes 1-2 boats are under scheduled maintenance and the number of deployed boats and missiles is correspondingly reduced.
    The discovery of the author was that it is in combat formation is also The Thirteenth Boat - “Dmitry Donskoy” and the number of missiles on our submarines is 212 .. According to the author, it was modernized
    for testing (and, accordingly, using) R-30 Bulava missiles with 20 launchers

    No one argues that on the 941 project there were 20 launchers for R-39 missiles. But these missiles have long been gone, and modernization has touched one or two launchers. Experimental boat designed exclusively for testing new missiles (in this case, the R-30 Bulava). Upgraded 1-2 launchers. All. There was no talk of any modernization of the remaining 18 mines. If tomorrow the Makeevtsy or MITovtsy make a new rocket with different dimensions, the boat will again dock in the modernization of these 1-2 launchers. And before that I had not heard that experimental ships and boats were numbered as part of the combat forces

    Further, the author’s argument that the abandoned weight of the Bulava is 1,15 tons, but that of the “Sineva” - as much as 2,8 tons. Here only our publications regarding thrown weights sometimes sinned with not entirely reliable data. In the famous Degtyar’s book, it is written in black and white that sometimes, when they talk about something, they confuse the maximum weight and the weight cast over a certain range. And the situation with the “Blue” is such that it does not throw at a range of 2,8 tons declared, but slightly less. But 2,8 throws at a range of thousands and a half kilometers less than the declared. Everyone who wants can, based on the reference data on this rocket, taking into account the same coefficient of energy-mass perfection, calculate how much and what it can. Oh well, the thing is that they are only and not so much in that. The author’s passage is striking
    And in the retaliatory strike, the main task will be to defeat precisely the areas, rather than point targets, as with the preemptive “disarming” and “decapitating” ones.

    No, of course it’s clear that it’s pointless to shoot at the mines. They are empty. But here the goals for the warheads of the same "Mace" may be one of the major power plants or a major transportation hub. Does the author really believe that for such purposes it does not take much accuracy to disable an object by 100%? And will it not be all the same to the same railway junction or power station when 1,5 or 2 kt of a warhead explodes in 150-300 hundred meters from them? The effect from the head of the "Blue" or "mace" for these purposes will be equivalent. But the collateral losses in the form of residential buildings will be more from Sineva

    Quote: Author
    The destruction of the Russian SSBNs will be a priority for the enemy, and for this he will allocate significant forces.

    Sorry, but the author betrays this as something so unusual. Opening at the Nobel Prize. Is it not a priori clear that the missile boats of the other side will be the primary goal?

    Quote: Author
    Calculations show that, by the end of the first ten days of combat operations, our SSBNs will be able to maintain, on average, all 0,7 – 0,75 areas in the Federation Council of the Russian Federation and 0,6 – 0,65 in the Pacific Ocean in the SF zone. That is, by the end of the first decade of battles, we may lose three or four atomic bomber carriers. These are 48 – 64 MBR. By the end of the second decade, the combat stability of our submarines is falling. In the zone of the Federation Council - to 0,3 – 0,4, on the Pacific Fleet - to 0,25 – 0,3. By the likely start of a nuclear war, we will lose up to nine or ten of our thirteen atomic cruisers. In fact, the PKK group will be crushed. That is, the available forces of the fleet to ensure the combat stability of our SSBNs is unrealistic.

    The passage regarding the first and second decades of hostilities and maintaining the combat stability of the SSBN is not entirely clear? Sorry, as the author understands this. So a global conflict has begun between Russia and the USA. They fired at our cities and missile bases with their missiles, both ICBMs and SLBMs, and we wait 10-20 days to use our SSBNs? And at the same time we can lose part? All these arguments, theorizing, may and may be necessary for a general analysis of the situation, how and what will happen if ... But the fact that missile boats will wait for a command for a salvo of 10-20 days is beyond understanding
    1. Prjanik
      Prjanik 7 May 2017 06: 29
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Sorry, as the author understands this. So a global conflict has begun between Russia and the USA. They fired at our cities and missile bases with their missiles, both ICBMs and SLBMs, and we wait 10-20 days to use our SSBNs? And at the same time we can lose part? All these arguments, theorizing, may and may be necessary for a general analysis of the situation, how and what will happen if ... But the fact that missile boats will wait for a command for a salvo of 10-20 days is beyond understanding

      The author speaks of a hypothetical 10-20 days of military operations WITHOUT using nuclear weapons against the enemy, as long as there is a chance of de-escalation and the obvious loss of either side is not obvious. How much this fits with our defense doctrine is another matter, and in my opinion it is unlikely, because if the US attacks us, urgent demonstration attacks by the strategic nuclear forces on neutral territories, and then limited attacks by tactical nuclear weapons on the aggressor, will only benefit.
      So that everyone understands that we will not flinch and will defend ourselves to the end, and even if the whole world is in ruin, it’s not a pity. This is the basis of our independent existence, guaranteed deterrence of the "world hegemon" from attack and just not getting to this very situation that the whole world is in ruin. So usually unscheduled tests of ICBMs are enough to scare and cool hotheads.
    2. Cossack 471
      Cossack 471 9 May 2017 00: 08
      0
      the war will be almost instantaneous and incomprehensible since the connection will immediately disappear. Only in Amer’s cinema do they see and know everything with the help of “smart sensors”
  11. NUR
    NUR 6 May 2017 08: 27
    +2
    What kind of article, who wants to fight a nuclear power, it will be suicide. Russia and the United States have nuclear weapons parity. The United States has practically no missile defense systems like in Russia. In Russia, only around Moscow in the USA. Two regions in a limited number. No one has protection against a massive blow. Why scares ordinary people, some storytellers.
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 6 May 2017 10: 03
      +1
      Quote: NUR
      Why scares ordinary people, some storytellers.

      In the US, people are scared to get even more money into the military budget. This is a market.
      In Russia, hysteria is escalating. so that people understand that they need to rally around (just whom ???) leaders in order to confront (who ???) ...
      If the United States has a chance to survive from non-nuclear weapons, then Europe, if it suddenly goes, will remain there ...
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 8 May 2017 08: 21
        0
        Intimidated and nervous people are easier to manage. This is the basic law of management. "At least some stability, at least someone who will save!"
  12. Operator
    Operator 6 May 2017 09: 14
    +3
    Another nonsense from Sivkov.

    No one in Russia will wait the nth number of days after the attack of the NATO countries, Japan and South Korea with the use of conventional weapons such as: "And when does the aggressor use his nuclear weapons to let us slap his own back."

    In accordance with the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, the Strategic Missile Forces and nuclear submarines will strike with ballistic missiles immediately after detecting a massive launch of enemy cruise missiles in our direction and raising the air of their tactical and carrier-based aircraft.

    So the naval forces of the enemy will have only a chance to drown the Russian nuclear submarines with the ammunition already used up.
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 6 May 2017 10: 05
      0
      Quote: Operator
      they will only have a chance to drown Russian nuclear submarines with their ammunition already used up.

      And will they have a chance to find them? belay
      1. Operator
        Operator 6 May 2017 11: 50
        +2
        Why bother detecting nuclear submarines after all missiles aboard are out of sporting interest?
  13. The comment was deleted.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 6 May 2017 11: 20
      +5
      Quote: rudolff
      Why is everyone so excited?

      laughing Spring is a friend, spring !!!
  14. demos1111
    demos1111 6 May 2017 10: 01
    +1
    Yes, I read the article, like there is a START3 treaty, there are restrictions on the number of blocks.
    I climbed into the search engine and typed "the most radioactive substance", it turned out it was made in Dubna, it is called like "liverworm". I understand that if you spray 3 tons of this over the USA, it’s enough for them.
    It heats up from radiation, radiates a million times more than uranium.
    It’s interesting as a weapon of retaliation, according to the meaning I’ll leave myself and lead others.
  15. Sars
    Sars 6 May 2017 10: 55
    0
    What the 41 year and events in Syria showed us: whatever the state of the armed forces, our fifth and sixth column reduces their power to zero.
  16. RASKAT
    RASKAT 6 May 2017 11: 15
    +2
    The author somehow forgot to mention the caliber complex on our submarines. Yes, our diesel engines to America may not reach, but they can easily strike at their advanced supply and deployment bases, at airfields, warehouses, and accumulations of forces and assets. Bases in Japan, in Korea in the Pacific, for Europe and Asia, I generally keep quiet, we get straight from their bases. So I wouldn’t easily discount our diesel boats. Ammunition boats 18 torpedoes can easily vary, say 6 torpedoes and 12 missiles. Pretty weighty argument.
  17. Serg65
    Serg65 6 May 2017 11: 23
    +2
    Quote: SarS
    What the 41 year and events in Syria showed us: whatever the state of the armed forces, our fifth and sixth column reduces their power to zero.

    what And what do you think, the seventh column will be able to level the actions of the previous ones? recourse
    1. free
      free 6 May 2017 16: 58
      0
      Quote: Serg65
      Quote: SarS
      What the 41 year and events in Syria showed us: whatever the state of the armed forces, our fifth and sixth column reduces their power to zero.

      what And what do you think, the seventh column will be able to level the actions of the previous ones? recourse


      really hope so!
  18. Music
    Music 6 May 2017 11: 43
    +2
    It is better to blow up a volcano in the Kuril Islands. In advance. This will greatly scare off aviation.
    1. TOR2
      TOR2 6 May 2017 20: 15
      +1
      Throw a few kilotons into the vent of Fuji. It will scare away not only aviation.
    2. DenZ
      DenZ 6 May 2017 22: 26
      0
      Are you going to scare our aviation? She also wants to fly.
  19. Old26
    Old26 6 May 2017 12: 47
    +6
    Quote: demos1111
    I understand that if you spray 3 tons of this over the United States, it’s enough

    In a couple of thousand years, we may accumulate such an amount of this element. He has a ped, depending on the isotopes, the half-life is from 7 to 58 milliseconds .... And there you can spray it laughing
  20. lopvlad
    lopvlad 6 May 2017 12: 55
    +3
    Quote: Finches
    But to be serious - we need another ten years without reducing, but rather, increasing the rate of armament, which is to reach the level of


    who will give you this decade. Since the beginning of the real large-scale rearmament of the army (since 2013), the West has been trying to draw into military conflicts with third countries in order to weaken and not allow us to rearm.
    Moreover, this pressure from the West is growing.
    Russia is still trying to avoid these traps and is only involved in conflicts where our direct participation is not suicidal for the economy and the situation in the country, where this participation cannot be avoided.
    The West deliberately set Ukraine on fire, realizing that if Russia gets involved in this conflict, then re-equipping and strengthening the Russian Armed Forces can put an end to it. No, not because the "Ukrainian army is the strongest in the world," but because in the event of a direct war of Russia against Ukraine on the Russian budget laid the content of almost 40 million Ukrainian mouths.
    Under such conditions, the rearmament of the army could be forgotten forever.
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. Borz1974
    Borz1974 6 May 2017 21: 00
    +1
    Quote: Olgovich
    Everyone understands that a major non-nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia will inevitably lead to a nuclear one.
    Therefore, when planning such a use of nuclear weapons will be laid down initially.
    And with the obvious inevitability of this, Russia must strike first. Story gave her the right on this: no June 22, August 41st and 1st of August 14th should not be repeated.
    1. Borz1974
      Borz1974 6 May 2017 21: 04
      +1
      And for this we need to place our media somewhere in Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico)
  23. ura-banzai
    ura-banzai 6 May 2017 22: 17
    +1
    He served quite a while in the Strategic Rocket Forces. In a critical situation, the missile may itself launch for this, there are self-propelled guns (automatic control system), and radio operators or telegraphists at the time H may not be needed, I think there is such a system on underwater missile carriers. In the patrol area there are always ships that duplicate the signal under water. My solution is a ground-based launch complex, four launchers on them are three missiles on duty, one on duty. The launch pad with a rocket is closed by modern cheap heat-insulating building structures for comfortable rocket service. Air defense covers only the position area. And announcements around the world that any approach of precision weapons to the launch complex is regarded as a clear threat to the sovereignty of the country and strategic nuclear forces and missiles will start instantly in automatic mode. And the main thing is to prepare commanders and decisive commanders who will fulfill the assigned task and will not chew for snot for hours and call back a thousand times or wait for a SPECIAL order that they like to do the job we received for money or by acquaintance and are afraid from time to time. Then some people will check the tomahawks every second and score together with their sneakers.
  24. Old26
    Old26 6 May 2017 22: 51
    +1
    Quote: ura-banzai
    He served quite a while in the Strategic Rocket Forces. In a critical situation, the missile may itself launch for this, there are self-propelled guns (automatic control system), and radio operators or telegraphists at the time H may not be needed, I think there is such a system on underwater missile carriers. In the patrol area there are always ships that duplicate the signal under water. My solution is a ground-based launch complex, four launchers on them are three missiles on duty, one on duty. The launch pad with a rocket is closed by modern cheap heat-insulating building structures for comfortable rocket service. Air defense covers only the position area. And announcements around the world that any approach of precision weapons to the launch complex is regarded as a clear threat to the sovereignty of the country and strategic nuclear forces and missiles will start instantly in automatic mode. And the main thing is to prepare commanders and decisive commanders who will fulfill the assigned task and will not chew for snot for hours and call back a thousand times or wait for a SPECIAL order that they like to do the job we received for money or by acquaintance and are afraid from time to time. Then some people will check the tomahawks every second and score together with their sneakers.

    Great, how. come up with. Ground-based launch complex, covered by cheap heat-insulating building structures. And the main thing is to announce to everyone and everything that only the WTO is approaching will automatically start.
    That's just for you for such a decision, the Americans should put a golden monument for the guaranteed destruction of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces. One warhead of 200-300 ct - and all four guaranteed warrants. and air defense won't help against strategic missile warheads
    1. ura-banzai
      ura-banzai 7 May 2017 23: 33
      0
      Do you know that only stationary ground and mine launch complexes can launch a rocket within one minute or earlier after pressing a button in the president’s nuclear case. The president of any country will press the button only after consulting with specialists or at certain threatening events, and this is all monitored and the answer will be instant. And the ground complex as cheaper in construction and maintenance, and better in terms of modernization. Everyone can criticize but suggest that something real for implementation right now at a given moment, given the existing capabilities, they simply cannot know this topic and question. In the mine launch, slide the lid or shoot, plus the mortar launch of the rocket, the risk is again and all these seconds will add up to minutes. But the interceptor is already flying and may not be enough for a few seconds, and the mine’s security in the air will not help. With a land launch, it’s easier than a mortar launch, there is no reliability above another couple of seconds and the rocket is at such a speed and at a high altitude that the interception must already be done at home. Do you want to sleep peacefully change the doctrine of the use of strategic nuclear forces for any threat and when I consider it necessary without notice. Like in the film BAY FIRST FREDI ... and the winners are not judged.
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 8 May 2017 00: 09
        +1
        Quote: ura-banzai
        And the ground complex as cheaper in construction and maintenance, and better in terms of modernization.

        And the most vulnerable ... Special construction Krona, heard il no? Guaranteed destruction of a pair of landmines with all contents? Unless, of course, the APU timely or in advance has not been put on the route of combat patrol. As for the main mode, it lasts at least 2 minutes after entering the necessary orders into the machine. A silo is in spite of the fact that its coordinates are known to be completely incapacitating quite difficult. The Americans will act on the principle of step bi step (step by step) using an outfit of at least 2 nuclear warheads per silo, while Krona is struck by a single non-nuclear warhead. In general, security of silos is a separate multifaceted topic for a short comment, by the way, among Americans, silos of Minutemans have the highest class of protection ...
        1. ura-banzai
          ura-banzai 8 May 2017 00: 50
          +1
          I'm not talking about the combat stability of the ground launch complex. I am writing about changing the nuclear component of the military doctrine and applying a preemptive strike, if not the first, then in a very short time at the slightest threat. And the cost of the called PU as faster and cheaper both in terms of construction and in terms of application. The defeats of the ground complex, I do not even consider it yesterday I served on them. The rocket must fly away before something starts to fall. If you shoot from a machine gun quickly and accurately, a bulletproof vest may not be needed. With such an arrogant clang of weapons, few dare. The United States does not even allow the thought that something will fall to them. And here you have not only changed the nuclear doctrine from defense to preemptive, but also missiles are openly ready to fly at any second. I expressed myself quite clearly.
          1. Ascetic
            Ascetic 8 May 2017 01: 07
            +1
            Quote: ura-banzai
            I am writing about changing the nuclear component of the military doctrine and applying a preemptive strike, if not the first, then in a very short time at the slightest threat.

            There is such a situation, read my koment above

            2
            Ascetic Yesterday, 10:38 | Black Holes and Red Lines
            Quote: KudrevKN
            I absolutely agree with you: the next pearl of Sivkov is BSK (Bullshit) !? This is not "analytics", this is complete nonsense!

            Especially this
            In the war with Russia, probably, the initial alignment will be the same. The transition to the use of nuclear weapons will be justified either by the obvious preparation of the Russian Armed Forces for the use of strategic nuclear forces as a result of the defeat of the general-purpose forces, or by the proximity of their defeat after the failure of the first operations. Let’s take the 15 – 20 days into this and accept this time limit to assess the feasibility of maintaining the SSBF combat capability of the Russian Federation.

            To begin with, the author needs to read the military doctrine of the Russian Federation in a generally accessible version in order to carry such nonsense ... let alone the secret plans of combat use or the Combat Charter of the Strategic Missile Forces generally keep silent bully
            Even the release of missile defense destroyers on the battle lines and the concentration of the AUG will already become an occasion to start a single frightening or demonstrative nuclear weapons at any object of the General Staff's choice BEFORE active combat operations with conventional weapons
  25. TOR2
    TOR2 6 May 2017 23: 25
    0
    To be honest, a strange article. So everything is mixed right away and you will not understand the development of the plot that the author suggests. And so the very beginning of the mess. It is supposed a massive blow "Axes". At the moment, the main directions from where the "axes" fly are known. For some reason, the author does not offer a recipe "how to make porridge from an ax." But it is no secret that the more "axes" will be destroyed on approach to the coastal edge, the less fuss with them on land.
    Of course, you can supplement the Ball and Bastion complexes with such an interesting development as the Satchel system. But the “satchel” has an Achilles heel. The complex is quite bulky, and the range of destruction for example in the export version is only 15 km., And this is very small. Increasing the range will lead to a significant increase in size and weight. But what if we increase the complex’s radius of the antenna and the power of the installation, and the range of destruction will also increase. That at the same time it turns out we put on the "Bison". The troop compartment "Bison" will allow you to place a fairly powerful diesel generator set along with the equipment, and there is enough space for the antenna retracted into the transport position. The “knapsack” antenna has a variable focus, so it can work both in shield mode, creating powerful frontal interference, and in sword mode, creating voltage on the target’s surface that exceeds kilovolt / meter, which causes breakdowns that damage the device’s electronics.

    Target designation such "Bison" can receive both from coastal complexes, and from the ships of the Navy. In extreme cases, the radar from the "Top" or "Shell" will not harm him. The striking factor of such a "bison" is suitable for any purpose. This is no longer a "bison", but a "rotan" is obtained.
    Quote: DEPARTMENT
    If kneading begins, they will definitely kill us here first! .. Mentally, I always prepare for this, but there are practically no options for salvation

    We are on the defensive here a lot of them, there will be little help for us will not call do not call. And we still have hope for God, and the right angle of "tilt armor."
  26. Old26
    Old26 7 May 2017 10: 40
    +2
    Quote: alma
    Here's another idea: River missile systems, rivers, we have the most on the planet. They’ll look from the satellite - who’s going there, HZ? Is it a barge or a tanker?

    You have written correctly. We have the most rivers on the planet. I emphasize MORE ALL. But this does not mean that only we have rivers? Do you understand the hint? A medal always has a downside. We make river complexes - our opponent makes them too. And now we have to solve the problem of FINDING such complexes on the rivers of Europe and America.
    But those who were developing the first arms limitation treaties were far from stupid people. And they understood that it was necessary to put maximum restrictions on all kinds of exotic types of launchers. And they laid it. On such barges, tankers, and generally all kinds of different vessels, it is possible to place ballistic missiles. But only with range AT NO MORE THAN XNUMX KILOMETERS. Placement of missiles with a range of more than 600 km FORBIDDEN on any media other than Submarine. Sorry, comrade, but almost 40 years back this loophole we with the Americans mutually covered

    Quote: YUG64
    Under the ice, this is right ... But on the whole, it is necessary - and it is necessary - to develop the direction that the enemy is most afraid of - it will be able to catch hot heads at the right time ... And most of all Americans are afraid of our BZHRK ... Actually, because the best friends of our "partners" leaked them ...

    One clarification - Were afraid. But what they really fear is our PGRK
    Were afraid BJRK for several reasons
    1. Satellite systems of the 80s - beginning of the 90s did not have such an extension that would be 100% likely to identify these compositions, despite all the specifics of their configuration. Further. In the USSR it was deployed THREE divisions of these missiles, although it was planned SEVEN. And to track even 36 compositions on the vast territory of the UNITED COUNTRY, not to mention promising 84, was almost impossible. In addition, the USSR was a "closed" country and Americans could hardly "get" into the ACS of the Ministry of Railways.
    2. Now, instead of even THREE divisions, only ONE is planned, albeit with FIVE compositions (regiments). Satellite optoelectronic reconnaissance and spectrozonal imaging systems will allow you to get a "portrait" of this train with almost a 100% guarantee.
    In addition, now the adversary can simply get into the network. In any case, this train in all files, documents and messages will be held as “letter” Yes, and 6 missiles in one train are now less scary for the adversary than 3 missiles earlier. There, for 100% failure of such a train with 100% guaranteed detection, at least 4 warheads were required, now one is enough

    But PGRK they were really afraid seriously. There were also bans on WGMs for PGRK; maximum deployment areas for divisions were established. Everything was done to “immobilize” our PGRK.DA and now this issue has not been resolved by them. The BZHRK has one way of moving, because he is attached to the "piece of iron" - PGRK - a lot

    Quote: YUG64
    This is already ... Launchers in standard cargo containers .. You can put it on any live. Googly Club-k. But it works on ground and surface targets, not strategic ...

    You can also google the organization of the manufacturer. and find out, after reading reports for 10 years, how many such systems have been released. You will be terribly surprised that their number is ZERO. Even underdeveloped countries that cannot have a full-fledged navy DO NOT BUY them for a simple reason. They understand very well that they need to fly either the naval flag of their country on such a boat or immediately record this vessel in the register of "pirated" ones. And further events will be predictable. If earlier, in the event of a conflict, the adversary could such civilian vessels would not be destroyed by the adversary, still a civilian vessel. At least a single use of such a “trap-vessel” is enough for the enemy to stop dealing with them. He will no longer be screened, afraid to get on board, but immediately drown. In addition, for targeting anti-ship missiles, you will need to use your own radar of this complex, which does not work with the same parameters as the civilian one. The same thing with containers on cars and rail. Once used, and such container terminals, road and rail carriers become the primary goals.
    That's why not a single such complex in 2 decades, as we carry it at exhibitions and have not been sold ...

    Quote: rudolff
    You know, it’s ridiculous of course, but ... The guys from the neighboring Gadzhiev’s division of the PKK CH told the truth on their conscience:

    The funny thing is, Rudolph, that in this story almost everything is correct. About 3 years ago we sat in a bar for a "mug of tea." One was from the "former Strategic Missile Forces", the second from the SSBN. They also could not understand how this could be so for each of them. Some have a XNUMX-hour duty at the UKP with specific calculation numbers. Other watches

    Quote: Serg65
    Due to existing restrictions, the complex is able to hit only monoblock ballistic missiles

    I will say more. This complex has NEVER ever hit intercontinental targets. Exclusively only BRDS. In all respects, he can, but not yet. Moreover, I can’t say about a specific time (2017), but 10 years ago these interceptors had a very low probability of hitting a target. Now I don’t remember exactly, but something about 0,75-0,8. Which meant that to destroy one simple target (a monoblock warhead without a breeding stage), it took about 4 interceptors (for which they basically worked on a multi-headed interceptor). According to open data, up to 3-4 monoblock interceptor missiles would again be required to destroy Russian missiles with 17-19 RGMs, false targets and a breeding stage.

    Quote: Serg65
    At the same time, the Soviet-Russian R-36M2 Voyevoda missile can carry from 1 to 16 warheads, the RT-2ПМ2 Topol-M has 1 warhead and from 15 to 20 false, PC-24 Xars - units while combat units still have the audacity to maneuver. Well, for an appetizer X - 3 with an unknown flight range!

    And here, comrade, already data from Internet Murzil
    1. The Voivode could carry up to 14 (fourteen warheads). Due to the fact that the breeding stage is two-tiered with 14 seats for blocks. Given that there was a limit of 10 BBs for ICBMs, the remaining 4 places were occupied by false targets, which could be both light and heavy false targets, which are almost indistinguishable in their characteristics from real combat ones.
    2. What does a false warhead mean for "Poplar-M". According to some, let’s say, not quite official data, Poplar-M could hardly carry more than 3 false blocks. "inflatable" maybe 15-20, comparable in characteristics with a real warhead - 2-3, hardly more
    3. On the RS-24 exactly the same warheads as on the "Topol", "Topol-M" and our other products. They can differ from each other, but only by power, while being Out of control. Guided warheads are only now being tested as part of the 4202 program, but whether they will be in service is still unknown.
  27. Alceers
    Alceers 7 May 2017 22: 33
    +3
    It should be included in the Military Doctrine of Russia.
    The absence of a scheduled communication session two to three times may be considered the basis for a conclusion about the death of a submarine
    .
    God, who appropriated capraza to this ignorant coupled with a scientific title! Not only did he not read our doctrine, there are exactly all the criteria for the first nuclear strike by us! And mass attacks with precision weapons as well. But even such an elementary thing that bombers on duty do not do any exits to communication sessions at all!
    Article and afftor in the furnace ...
    1. ura-banzai
      ura-banzai 7 May 2017 22: 51
      +1
      They make communications and, moreover, regularly, only you do not know about it. Even under water there is a connection.
      1. Alceers
        Alceers 7 May 2017 22: 59
        +2
        Don’t cheat on me. I’ve been in a sturdy building for 15 years. anyway better than couch strategists
        1. ura-banzai
          ura-banzai 8 May 2017 15: 01
          0
          But what about the command to launch missiles from nuclear submarines. If she doesn’t get in touch and, according to your words, doesn’t accept anything because she’s at depth. So you will turn out and the Third World War is already over and Russia is no longer Mother. You were on duty at the depths and constantly checked the rocket. And turn into apocalypse pirates will terrorize the surviving inhabitants of the earth. Or unite in sea wolfs with other submarines because nuclear submarines' vigorous motor resources are unlimited. A good idea.
          1. Alceers
            Alceers 8 May 2017 15: 27
            0
            Quote: ura-banzai
            to launch missiles from nuclear submarines. If she doesn’t get in touch and, according to your words, doesn’t accept anything because she’s at depth.

            Not according to my words ... but according to your speculation. You are attributed to me. You’re talking nonsense again. Learn to read. The reception is working. And in order to convey it yourself, you need to come up breaking the secrecy. Therefore, no exits for scheduled sessions
            1. ura-banzai
              ura-banzai 8 May 2017 16: 24
              0
              Already closer to the body as Mosopan said. Good luck.
  28. Perseus
    Perseus 8 May 2017 07: 14
    0
    blah blah blah ..... both the article and the comments .....
  29. kalibr
    kalibr 8 May 2017 08: 10
    0
    It becomes clear: nuclear war is rational and in it, with proper preparation and the right choice of method of conduct, you can win, even with huge losses. But the win is colossal - world domination.

    Strange, it is enough to open the Soviet military encyclopedia of 1975 and it says in black and white: "The Soviet people should be ready to triumph in the future ...." It is not difficult to find. So there is no discovery. But there is no country itself that has published this encyclopedia.
  30. Irbenwolf
    Irbenwolf 8 May 2017 11: 11
    0
    The other day I read the Internet that the "Kuz'kin mother" was blown up at half the power so as not to accidentally change the orbit (as one of the factors). I don’t know if this is true or not, but holding a couple of charges in the seismic hot spots of the planet is absolutely necessary! Having forgiven tsunamis and earthquakes, missile defense does not help ...
    1. Cossack 471
      Cossack 471 9 May 2017 00: 24
      0
      "Dog Heart" Verily I say unto you. the earth will fly on the celestial axis!
  31. asher
    asher 8 May 2017 11: 15
    +1
    All the arguments about the need to build more and more war chariots, tanks, ships, submarines, trying to catch up with the enemy for the sake of 10 days of war, cause anguish and despair. Like many years ago and wars ago, it’s impossible to come up with your own unexpected and turning into unnecessary scrap mountains mountains of the enemy. With such needs for ships, it’s easier to immediately build a cruiser in space, capable of smashing the whole Earth with one launch and not trying to copy Americans like a monkey.
  32. Old26
    Old26 8 May 2017 13: 02
    +2
    Quote: IrbenWolf
    The other day I read the Internet that the "Kuz'kin mother" was blown up at half the power so as not to accidentally change the orbit (as one of the factors). I don’t know if this is true or not, but holding a couple of charges in the seismic hot spots of the planet is absolutely necessary! Having forgiven tsunamis and earthquakes, missile defense does not help ...

    The power of the product was really reduced by half, but not because the earth came out of orbit or split there. There was just an assumption that the atmosphere would react.
    It’s stupid to hold such charges on faults. Firstly, charges require fairly regular maintenance (regulations); secondly, what will be the reaction to the explosion of such bombs is completely unknown whether there will be a tsunami or not. The wave from the explosion of such a charge will be, but at a distance of 1-2 hundred kilometers will come to naught. But who will shake at the same time is completely unpredictable. You can blow up such a charge at such a point off the coast of California, California will be shocked, and a catastrophic earthquake in Primorye or Kamchatka may turn out to be a response, in which tsunamis arise and all bring to hell.
    It is precisely because of this, due to uncontrollability and unpredictability, that they stopped working on tectonic weapons at the time (in the 70s). And we all dream of nuclear bombs in the faults and the giant Tsunami on the American continent. But nothing that will wash away Cuba?
    1. Alexaner Arier
      Alexaner Arier 8 May 2017 20: 20
      0
      fair remark. Who cares if the earth splits.
  33. Alexaner Arier
    Alexaner Arier 8 May 2017 20: 17
    0
    In Pesatili they give out highland. what victory and domination, where and over whom ??? even if there is a victorious strike against Russia, strike with two hundred nuclear charges and there is no answer, then this is enough for everyone. just in Russia right away and the rest of the world's population with some slight delay. and Australia, South and North America.
    you can argue to the point that someone will survive, maybe there will be some kind of mutant children, only this is another life and another land will be. or maybe it won’t. hard to say for sure. the same probability that everything will die out as a mistake of nature, like dinosaurs.
  34. pshek
    pshek 8 May 2017 22: 26
    0
    Becomes clear: nuclear war is rational and in it with proper preparation and the right choice of method of conduct can win, even with huge losses. But the gain is colossal - world domination.


    Long time ago I did not read such nonsense.
  35. litus
    litus 8 May 2017 23: 25
    0
    As soon as I removed the probabilities, I never doubted that the author was Sivkov ...
  36. Old26
    Old26 9 May 2017 09: 03
    0
    Quote: pshek
    Becomes clear: nuclear war is rational and in it with proper preparation and the right choice of method of conduct can win, even with huge losses. But the gain is colossal - world domination.

    Long time ago I did not read such nonsense.

    You're right. Bullshit 100%. No, theoretically can and can win. There is simply such an expression - "Pyrrhic victory." Here it will just be like that.
    Now I don’t remember where exactly in the network there was a review of one of the adequately minded. He simply took and calculated the minimum number of goals that can be in the country, the destruction of which will lead to a collapse of the economy and management. That is, the country will in fact remain, only the state will cease to be. And he was not afraid to take into account each BG. No, the review is quite general, but nonetheless interesting. For example, I’ll give everyone a "beloved America." I emphasize again. The calculations are 4-5 years old, so the minimum number of goals may be different.

    So. United States of America. The goals may include:
    1. 9 million cities. Costs for each from 6 to 12 charges (6 x 300 ct, 12 x 100 ct). Total 54-108 BB
    2. 28 major cities and industrial centers. Costs for each - 3-6 charges. Total 84-168 BB
    3. 25 large power plants x 1 charge. Only 25 BB
    4. 22 large transport hubs. Each cost is 1-2 charges. Total 22-44 BB
    5. 60 military facilities x 1 charge. 60 BB total
    6. 15 air bases x 1charge. Only 15 BB
    7. 6 naval bases x 1 charge. Only 6 charges.

    Total 165 goals with a consumption of about 266-426 blocks. Moreover, about 60 operating nuclear power plants are not taken into account. In short. Americans can theoretically defeat Russia. But they themselves will be radioactive ruins. And besides, they will be cut off from other countries by the ocean, and they will be cut off for decades, if not centuries. Does this author consider a “rational nuclear war”?