Military Review

Disaster managers

137
Disaster managers



Few of the current generation know how close our world was at the brink of nuclear abyss on Black Saturday, 27, October 1962, at the peak of the Cuban missile crisis. And those who know about this, when asked about the causes of this nightmare, most likely will say about the deployment of their nuclear missiles in Cuba by the Russians. And practically no one can say what pushed the Russians to such a step. It is not customary to recall this. But this crisis, which almost initiated the nuclear war, was caused by the deployment of Jupiter medium-range missiles in Turkey by the United States in NATO (a NATO member country), which in less than 1961 minutes could have wiped off parts of the USSR, including Moscow. Khrushchev responded accordingly, making it clear to Kennedy that such a game can be played together. The catastrophe was avoided only after the Russians received a promise to withdraw American missiles from Turkey.

Do you think the lesson in Washington was learned? Very wrong. The multi-star generals from the Pentagon were ready to eat Kennedy alive for not allowing them to turn our land into radioactive ashes. And a little later, they once again tried to bring the "apocalypse" closer. It did not work in Turkey, it turned out in Germany, where the Pershing mobile ballistic missiles and Tomahawk land-based cruise missiles were pushed. The Russians did not tolerate giving the answer with a "bouquet" of "SS-20", "SS-4", "SS-5", "SS-12" and put forward "SS-23" into the territory of the GDR to cover threatening positions " Pershing. " And the devil knows how everything would end, considering Reagan’s cowboy chase, but Mikhail Gorbachev’s softness and pliability saved the world, quite deservedly (unlike Barack Obama) awarded the Nobel Prize for his contribution to peace.

It was thanks to Gorbachev that a compromise was reached that determined the possibility of signing the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles (INF) in 1987. The treaty, it should be noted, is beneficial primarily to the United States, since the USSR agreed to include the SS-23 in the treaty, although they did not fall under the definition of the INF. The world breathed a sigh of relief. The arrows on the clock of the atomic war were turned back.

But some people were impatient to return the “happy” time when the Americans and Europeans were digging in the yards of atomic bunkers and stocking up on canned goods. Unilaterally, the "peacemaker" Obama withdrew the United States from the Treaty on the Limitation of ABM Systems. The radar and missiles went to Poland and the Czech Republic, right to the side of the Russians, who listened gloomily to the deceitful nonsense about the defense against Iran and North Korea and sent Iskander tactical complexes to Kaliningrad. And not only because the American anti-missiles are breaking the entire strategic balance to the hell, but also because the launchers of interceptor missiles can be adapted in the shortest possible time to launch ... Tomahawk cruise missiles! Here is such a gentleman's observance of the INF.

And what do you think, what kind of reaction did the Russian attempt to defend against the new threat provoke? That's right, a number of US congressmen offered to consider this a reason for withdrawing from the Treaty. I really want to dominate by juggling with nuclear warheads, and then some kind of restrictive treaty gets underfoot! Even cowboy Reagan didn’t allow such a thing. This rollback to the days of the Cold War will end very badly. And for all.

Original in English.
Originator:
https://www.reddit.com/r/russia/comments/6onsvs/catastrophes_manager/
137 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. zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 28 July 2017 07: 04
    +3
    And how was such an article missed in the English-language media?
    1. forty-eighth
      forty-eighth 28 July 2017 08: 58
      +2
      Reddit is not the media. A popular widescreen forum on the Internet.
      1. 210ox
        210ox 29 July 2017 11: 43
        +5
        What the crap ... At the feet of the tagged left to rush? Yes, on his first aspen!
        1. Akuzenka
          Akuzenka 1 August 2017 09: 58
          +3
          but the world was saved by the gentleness and pliability of Mikhail Gorbachev, who deservedly (unlike Barack Obama) was awarded the Nobel Prize for his contribution to the cause of peace.

          Yes, he saved the world ..... the western world. And he betrayed and surrendered our Motherland. Let him live longer and see that his attempts are lost in vain.
  2. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 28 July 2017 07: 05
    +13
    At the beginning of the article, the author remembered the story, but for some reason considered that few people know why the USSR deployed missiles in Cuba. Then he zealously praised the one who ruined a vast country. And in conclusion, I made a clear conclusion to everyone
    This rollback to the times of the Cold War will end very badly. And for everyone.
    Nothing more to add.
    1. nickname7
      nickname7 28 July 2017 12: 12
      +3
      This is from the point of view of such citizens of the Russian Federation as Makarevich, it is necessary to bend under the interests of others. But, from the point of view of a resident of the West, everything that is useful to his country is right, therefore, the collapse of the GDR is positive for them, and a labeled good person.
      1. sds87
        sds87 30 July 2017 09: 48
        +1
        Quote: nickname7
        This is from the point of view of such citizens of the Russian Federation as Makarevich, it is necessary to cave in under the interests of others

        Please quote him where he says that
        need to cave in under the interests of others.
        I am not a fan of Makarevich, but the words in his song sounded differently:
        ... Do not bend under a changing world - it is better if it bends under us. One day he will bend under us ...
        And this confrontation with the West will not end in anything good. When the gun hangs on the wall for a long time, a manic desire arises to remove it and use it for its intended purpose. Who and when will pull the hook?
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 28 July 2017 18: 13
      +1
      on a quiet drive in the forest they restore the fourth path and the path to a dead end to the forest (without contact network)
  3. inkass_98
    inkass_98 28 July 2017 07: 06
    +5
    Captain Evidence opened his eyes to the state of affairs in the world.
  4. SPACE
    SPACE 28 July 2017 08: 08
    +4
    It is becoming crowded on the planet, resources are limited, all this contributes to the growth of contradictions, in connection with which, some, some, some, mutually, consider it superfluous in this world and this process is no longer stopping. So, one way or another, despite the subjective understanding and attitude of people, the matter is inexorably and irreversibly leading to a big war.
    This rollback to the times of the Cold War will end very badly. And for everyone.

    I disagree with this, for many yes, but not for everyone, and this is another serious reason for starting a big massacre.
    1. Dimy4
      Dimy4 28 July 2017 09: 27
      +5
      If one of the American figures expects to sit in super-duper protected bunkers, then after the nuclear apocalypse there will be nowhere to live on Earth, there will be no one to manage, there will be no one to download and sell resources. Lunar landscape.
  5. Old26
    Old26 28 July 2017 08: 40
    +8
    The Caribbean crisis is still waiting for its chroniclers. What happened and how sometimes it is hushed up and hushed up now. Please note that if earlier, in the 70s, it was said that the cause of the crisis was the deployment of US missiles in the UK, Italy and Turkey, now only Turkey is mentioned ...
  6. midshipman
    midshipman 28 July 2017 10: 34
    +18
    Dear VO readers, the article provides inaccurate data. During the Cold War, Soviet submarines were off the coast of the United States whose mission was to deliver a nuclear strike against established targets. The Pentagon and the US Government have been notified. They feared this, and the Government of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact Command were in priority over the USA. Tagged, in the article he is called Gorbachev, just a criminal. He destroyed the USSR, surrendered to the USA the GDR and other countries of the Warsaw Pact. We had to live in peace with the USA, but the labeled and the Alkash upset the balance. No one was going to start a nuclear war, the author came up with this. Calculations and estimates showed that the United States would cease to exist in the event of a nuclear conflict. I have the honor.
    1. nickname7
      nickname7 28 July 2017 11: 58
      0
      off the coast of the United States were Soviet submarines whose mission was to deliver a nuclear strike against established targets.

      In your opinion, the initiator of the arms race was the USSR, which scared the peaceful states of the submarines? And the actions of the states, surrounded by the ring of bases around the soviets, is protection against the aggressor?
      1. Colonel
        Colonel 28 July 2017 12: 29
        +6
        Quote: nickname7
        In your opinion, the initiator of the arms race was the USSR

        And where did you get that?
    2. NordUral
      NordUral 28 July 2017 17: 50
      0
      Knowledge is power. But you have no strength in the arguments. Those diesel boats were not carriers of missiles with atomic warheads.
      1. midshipman
        midshipman 28 July 2017 18: 32
        +4
        Dear Nord Ural, I am providing data for you.
        By 1989, the USSR Navy had 39 nuclear submarines, and in terms of the number of submarines we were significantly ahead of the United States. Each submarine was armed with 16 ballistic missiles. By the nature of work and service, I often had to be in Kamchatka then. After a 3-month hike in Paratunka, submariners regained their strength there. In the presence of the command of the USSR Ministry of Defense, I met with submariners. Have you been to Paratunka? If not, get there. Much will amaze you. I have the honor.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 July 2017 21: 44
          +1
          Quote: midshipman
          By 1989, the USSR Navy had 39 nuclear submarines

          What does this have to do with the crisis of 1962? In addition, the USSR by 1989 had nuclear submarines significantly larger than the number you indicated. Maybe you mean the SSBN?
  7. Antianglosax
    Antianglosax 28 July 2017 10: 54
    +8
    GSS are much more vulnerable during the development of the nuclear scenario. They also understand this very well. Yellow stone and huge tsunamis on both coasts will not leave a chance for Amers. The center of the country will be covered by nuclear weapons.
    So you can safely go to an open confrontation - at the time of X, the Anglo-Saxons, as usual, drift and merge. There is no doubt about it. They have more to the extent of what to lose than we - and do the English geeks need this? And in any case, regardless of the result of the exchange of nuclear weapons, the Americans will never again become a superpower. Too big risks! Hence their sanctions, stink, fuss and barking. They will choke economically, although the time for the geeks does not remain at all.
    1. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 28 July 2017 13: 23
      +3
      Well, the main share of the RF budget profit is the export of natural resources. And do you want to go into an open confrontation with NATO? Even Britain has a larger military budget than Russia.
      And NATO has more nuclear weapons than the Russian Federation.
      1. bk316
        bk316 28 July 2017 14: 52
        +8
        Well, the main share of the RF budget profit is the export of natural resources

        Nda here is another zombie.
        What difference will there be after nuclear weapons? The whole world economy will change in the most dramatic way, there will be no exchanges, stocks, reserve currencies, pension fords, no exports, most likely there will be no international trade. Who will lose more?
        Even Britain has a larger military budget than the Russian Federation.

        And how much Britain alone (after all, the budget is more so as not to defeat it) will last against the Russian Federation. Day two? Do you have any idea that the budget is somehow not very important?
        And NATO has more nuclear weapons than the Russian Federation.

        And who has more "the concept of acceptable damage" and "necessary to win damage to the enemy"? Think, read, maybe you will understand why even NATO is afraid to fight with the IC; I’m not talking about China and the Russian Federation
        1. Tomahawk
          Tomahawk 28 July 2017 16: 11
          0
          Well, you know that Russia is no longer the key supplier of natural resources in the world, and if Russia leaves this market, then no global catastrophe will happen.
          And if the war begins with Britain, the Russian Federation will naturally not send its entire army to Britain, the Russian Armed Forces will still have to go through Europe, but if it does, then the US Armed Forces will already be in large numbers in Britain, and by the way, the British fleet is stronger than the fleet of the Russian Federation, and the main tanks of the Russian Federation is just the T-72, you yourself know which years (and see how they showed themselves in the Gulf War), and Britain relies more on its fleet, which is also more modern than the fleet of the Russian Federation.
          And I’ll also remind you about nuclear weapons, which Britain also has.
          1. bk316
            bk316 29 July 2017 13: 33
            +4
            and if the Russian Federation leaves this market, then no global catastrophe will happen.

            If leaving the market does not happen, only the post that you commented not about leaving the market but about the war with the use of nuclear weapons After 5-6 thousand nuclear explosions will be a global catastrophe?
            RF Armed Forces will still have to go all over Europe

            What for? I did not say "the capture of England," "I spoke of the victory of the war over England."
            You do not seem to have read a single military doctrine, either valid or old. To win, by definition, it is not necessary to occupy the territory, it is enough to destroy a certain percentage of the military-industrial potential and population (that is, to cause certain damage). Why do we need to send tanks through the Lamansh for this, just a salvo of one regiment of the Strategic Missile Forces is enough.
            1. Tomahawk
              Tomahawk 29 July 2017 14: 53
              0
              Then Britain will be enough to defeat the Trident-2 volley from a strategic missile submarine cruiser of the Wangard type
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. Tomahawk
                  Tomahawk 29 July 2017 21: 50
                  0
                  In your opinion, the fleet will have 2 aircraft carriers, the world's best air defense destroyer (if not the world's best air defense ship) (type 45), which has many modern Estuity-class submarines, and which has 4 Vengard SSBNs with missiles (Trident-2) of which there are still no competitors, in their type, weak? The Russian fleet is still less supported by old submarines, which are still armed with P-15 missiles (missiles of the 60s), but no more.
                  1. badens1111
                    badens1111 29 July 2017 22: 12
                    +1
                    Quote: Tomahawk
                    The Russian fleet is still less supported by old submarines, which are still armed with P-15 missiles (missiles of the 60s), but no more.

                    Blessed is he who believes in this. Believe further.
                    Your mantras about the latest aglitz destroyers that make a noise like a bucket of bolts are especially funny ...
                    1. Tomahawk
                      Tomahawk 29 July 2017 23: 06
                      0
                      You can not trust me, comrade, but you still can’t prove that the P-15 is not in service and that the Russian fleet is old.
                      And as for type-15, I’ll say that it operates in a formation in which there are PLO ships, and you know for a ship like him, with its performance characteristics, this is a serious drawback, but not a critical one.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 July 2017 01: 02
                        +2
                        Quote: Tomahawk
                        The Russian fleet is still less supported by old submarines, which are still armed with P-15 missiles (missiles of the 60s), but no more.

                        (crawling out from under the table with difficulty) Thank you, you made me tonight laughing good
                        Let it be known to you that the Russian Navy has long ceased to have nuclear submarines capable of firing Termites. But underwater cruisers, capable of hammering "Granites" - there :))) And "Caliber" (Pike-B ") - too.
                        Quote: Tomahawk
                        According to your fleet, which will have 2 aircraft carriers

                        Today there is no one with aviation. And it is not known when will
                        Quote: Tomahawk
                        which has a lot of the most modern Est type submarines

                        Three is a lot? :))))
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 July 2017 21: 56
            +3
            Quote: Tomahawk
            Well, you know that Russia is no longer the key supplier of natural resources in the world, and if Russia leaves this market, then no global catastrophe will happen.

            Global, with millions of dead - will not happen, but the local European will happen very much.
            Quote: Tomahawk
            and by the way, the British fleet is stronger than the Russian fleet

            fool The number of fleets look. Which place is Britain stronger? They are happy to cope with one Northern Fleet.
            Quote: Tomahawk
            and the main tanks of the Russian Federation are just T-72

            T-90, which Russia has about three times more than the "Challengers" in the UK, you modestly hesitated to mention? :)
            Quote: Tomahawk
            and see how they showed themselves in the Gulf War

            How? :))) Tell me about the T-72 tank battles
            Quote: Tomahawk
            and Britain relies more on its fleet, which is also more modern than the Russian fleet.

            Those. three idle Atyut and three Trafalgar of the early 90's - is it "more modern"? Oh well. Or were you impressed by the British frigates 23, roughly equivalent in their capabilities to Russian corvettes?
            1. Tomahawk
              Tomahawk 29 July 2017 23: 28
              0
              Comrade, before talking about the "European catastrophe" look at the numbers. What is the share of Russian gas and oil in Europe? The Europeans have evenly distributed their suppliers of gas and oil, and if one of them does not, then nothing will be catastrophic for Europe.
              For you, the number of fleets is the main indicator? For me and many others, the main indicator is the quantity / quality ratio. In your opinion, will Russia send its entire fleet to Britain? Now the remnants of the "mosquito fleet" of the USSR are outdated, and new ships are released for a long and irregular period. the radius of action of the AUG air wing is much larger than the radius of the RCC. That is, they are already on their way to sink enemy ships, without entering their defeat zone.
              The T-90 is a deep modification of the T-72 tank, it’s a shame not to know. Read about the application yourself, too lazy to get on the Internet?
              They are more modern than the total majority of Russian ships, and they are kept in excellent conditions and are doing the right thing when repairing, and Russia even has the 1991 Admiral Kuznetsov so smoking that the British began to fear for their ecology.
            2. Tomahawk
              Tomahawk 29 July 2017 23: 46
              0
              Well, you compared ... With the project 20380 corvettes? Look at the year of release. Moreover, Britain is already building a replacement for type 23 frigates, although project 20380 corvettes will not climb into the open ocean, the displacement is small, the coastal zone is maximum. weapons of type 23 (missile): 4PKR Harpoon, 32 Sivulf, weapons
              corvettes of the project 20380: 8 anti-ship missiles Caliber, 4 anti-ship missiles Uranus. It is easy to guess who has the most rockets.
              PS (for you from your Wikipedia) (quote) "Small patrol ships of project 20380 - a project of multipurpose surface combat ships of the 2nd rank of the near sea zone (according to the foreign classification of corvettes)"
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 July 2017 00: 56
                +3
                Quote: Tomahawk
                Europeans evenly distributed their suppliers of gas and oil, and if one of them does not, then there will be nothing catastrophic for Europe.

                Yeah. So, for example: Germany - 40% of Russian gas. Do you seriously believe that you can easily take and replace these deliveries like this? :)))
                Quote: Tomahawk
                For you, the number of fleets is the main indicator? For me and many others, the main indicator is the quantity / quality ratio.

                Moreover, a priori it is believed that one British ship in quality costs five Russian? lol
                Quote: Tomahawk
                In your opinion, will Russia send its entire fleet to Britain?

                No need to get out. You managed to say that the KVMF is stronger than the Russian Navy. Well, try to justify this your discovery.
                Quote: Tomahawk
                Now the remnants of the "mosquito fleet" of the USSR are outdated

                Yeah :))) But this is bad luck - there was nothing like the “mosquito” missile cruisers of projects 1164 and 1144 and MPLARK of project 949A in Great Britain. Similarly, there are no decent anti-ship missiles. And naval aviation, too.
                Quote: Tomahawk
                And the radius of action of the AUG air wing is much larger than the radius of the RCC

                Google banned you to such an extent that you are not aware that there are no AUGs in the KVMF? wassat
                Quote: Tomahawk
                That is, they are already on their way to sink the ships of the enemy, without entering their zone of destruction.

                In someone’s wet dreams, of course.
                Quote: Tomahawk
                T-90 is a deep modification of the T-72

                Exactly to the same extent that Challenger 2 is a descendant of Matilda
                Quote: Tomahawk
                Read about the application yourself, too lazy to climb into the Internet?

                Unlike you, I read. And did not notice any apocalyptic. Have you ever read the revelations of the legless mechanic Challenger, who was assured that his tank is impenetrable? I swore very much, you know.
                Quote: Tomahawk
                The estuets are more modern than the total majority of Russian ships, and they are kept in excellent conditions

                Tryndet not tossing bags. Estuity is a submarine with major operational problems that the British are heroically overcoming. I can reassure you - they will overcome them someday, in the end, and then it will be very formidable submarines. But now they are ineffective, and are unlikely to be able to do something against the same "Pike-B"
                Quote: Tomahawk
                and Russia even has the 1991 Admiral Kuznetsov so smoking that the British began to fear for their ecology

                Have you ever seen the smoke of other warships? Poor :)))) Nothing, I'll show you


                Quote: Tomahawk
                Well, you compared ... With the project 20380 corvettes? See year of release

                Ohhh, and then it suddenly turned out that the Russian Federation has modern ships and the "more modern" KVMF suddenly needed a discount on age? laughing
                Quote: Tomahawk
                Especially now Britain is already building a replacement for type 23 frigates

                Builds, yes. It's just that they are not in the fleet, and it is not clear when they will be. And, frankly, what the Angichans are building is far from a fountain. But, in any case, this does not apply to the current comparison of fleets.
                Quote: Tomahawk
                But even if you lose sight of it, see (I took information specifically from the Russian Wikipedia), weapons of type 23 (missile): 4PKR Harpoon, 32 Sivulf, weapons

                And taking into account the fact that the harpoon is obviously weaker than the Caliber, and the rather ancient Sivulf in terms of performance characteristics is weaker than the Cortica ... However, the British will probably be able to shoot from Sivulf laughing
                Quote: Tomahawk
                Armament
                corvettes of the project 20380: 8 anti-ship missiles Caliber, 4 anti-ship missiles Uranus.

                Those. You are not even able to master Wikipedia. The armament of the same "Guardian" - 8 anti-ship missiles Uranus and Kortik-M. the following have already 8 "Caliber" and 12 Redoubt cells in which up to 48 missiles are located :)))
                Quote: Tomahawk
                PS (for you from your Wikipedia) (quote) "Small patrol ships of the project 20380 - a project of multipurpose combat surface ships of the 2nd rank of the near sea zone

                Yes Yes. And you drive into a search engine such a magical phrase - 5 OPESK, you will find out that in our country it’s not like corvettes, small missile ships that were three times smaller than a corvette. Well, if you also strain the convolutions, then you can recall how smaller (than corvettes 20380) British destroyers carried land-lease in the USSR :))
                1. Tomahawk
                  Tomahawk 30 July 2017 02: 22
                  0
                  Comrade 40% is not so critical, you can harness other suppliers, who will gladly reimburse you for gas and oil.
                  There is no AUG, but in 2-3 years they will be with the F-35 on board, while the Russian fleet does not even have an aircraft carrier in a serious project. Moreover, do not forget that in case of an attack, Britain will have its own ground bases, and the Russian fleet will operate away from their shores, and of course there will be supply problems that the British will just crash. There will also be a lot of anti-submarine helicopters, which Britain has a lot. About type 45, too, don’t forget, they have locally for mooring mines for launching the Kyrgyz Republic Tomagavk.And normal UDCs in the Russian Federation have not learned how to do it. And the F-35 can be placed on UDCs, here you have a new light aircraft carrier. And do not forget that the British Air Force has an air force base throughout Europe, the Russian fleet will still need to be Britain.

                  You just look at the T-90 and T-72 do not see any similarities? Or go to the Internet and you will find out that the T-90 is a deep modification of the T-72.

                  Have you seen the “Admiral Kuznetsov?” Look and you’ll be horrified at what conditions the crew lives there, and compare with any NATO ship

                  Speaking of comparison. Comparison of fleets is not only a comparison of their numbers and quality, but also a comparison of the location of naval bases.

                  Do you know what a storm is? Even Type-23 is a ship, first of all, in the MIDDLE marine zone. Where are you going to send corvettes to the ocean?
                2. Tomahawk
                  Tomahawk 30 July 2017 02: 40
                  0
                  And look at the number of British submarines that are currently in service, are there few of them for the defense of Britain?
                3. Tomahawk
                  Tomahawk 30 July 2017 02: 45
                  0
                  And why did you forget to mention In your stories About Vengards with Trident-2, do you want me to say about the power of their salvo?
                4. Tomahawk
                  Tomahawk 30 July 2017 03: 09
                  0
                  And by the way, if you are not too lazy, go to Wikipedia and find out that the Termite missiles have not yet been removed from service in the Russian Federation.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 July 2017 13: 50
                    +2
                    Quote: Tomahawk
                    Comrade 40% is not so critical, you can harness other suppliers, who will gladly reimburse you for gas and oil.

                    You reason in the logic of the store owner. Right there - yes, 40% of the volume is not so critical, for the reasons stated by you. But with gas everything is much more complicated, because in order to sharply increase its supply it is necessary to sharply increase its production, which is not so easy, and for a number of countries it is completely impossible. If everything had been so simple, Europe would have long given up Russian gas.
                    Quote: Tomahawk
                    There is no AUG, but in 2-3 years they will be with the F-35 on board, while the Russian fleet does not even have an aircraft carrier in a serious project

                    Firstly, it is completely unclear why you are comparing the current position of the Russian Navy with some kind of rosy future Navy. Secondly, you cannot even compare it correctly. In 2-3 years, at best, the British will have only one aircraft carrier, Queen Elizabeth, and in the most perfect case, there will be 24 F-35V on it. And in this most remarkable variant for the KVMF, its real combat power will not be much different from the Kuznetsov with its two dozen MiG-29Ks and several Su-33s.
                    Quote: Tomahawk
                    Moreover, do not forget that in the event of an attack, Britain will have its own land bases, and the Russian fleet will operate offshore

                    What is it all of a sudden? The Russian Navy will solve its tasks, the only question is what they will be. It is unlikely that we are going to land in England, there is no strength for this. So, the task of the Navy will be to destroy the infrastructure of the UK, which the Russian Navy is capable of doing even from the Barents Sea (Granat cruise missiles, which are equipped with the same Pike. It’s nothing like the KVMF and will have to go to our shores to fend off the threat .
                    You can still cut the British communications, destroying transports, but here's the thing - for this, you do not need to come close to the shores of foggy Albion :)))
                    And further. Speaking about the bases of England, you forget that the Russian Federation has such a thing - YES, that is, long-range aviation, Tu-95 and Tu-160, which are capable of wiping British airbases (British naval aviation is already based on three airbases) into powder (conventional weapons ) - at least in the area of ​​operations to destroy the naval fleet of the KVMF, if it will be necessary.
                    Quote: Tomahawk
                    Also in many numbers there will be anti-submarine helicopters, of which Britain has a lot.

                    That's just our submarines there is no reason to climb into their combat radius.
                    Quote: Tomahawk
                    Do not forget about type 45 either; there are locally on them for mortar mines for launching the Tomahawk CR.

                    There is a place, but no mines. And it won’t be long before ... if at all. Recall how the British frigate went on a combat mission (Libya) already with four missiles in the mines? Savings should be economical laughing
                    Therefore, I repeat, it is necessary to compare what is, and not fantasies about what could be. In fact, today England is hardly capable of providing missiles with its fleet in the amount of full ammunition, and you dream of some Tomahawks :)
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 July 2017 13: 50
                      +2
                      Quote: Tomahawk
                      A normal UDC in the Russian Federation did not learn to do.

                      Firstly, you again mislead everyone a little. If the Russian Federation tried to build UDC and would have turned out bad UDC, then we can say that we have not learned. We just did not build them. And it would be necessary - done, there are no special problems. The Mistral order in France is a purely political decision, so to say thanks to the French for their support of the Russian Federation in the war 08.08.08
                      Quote: Tomahawk
                      And the F-35 can be placed on the UDC, here you have a new light aircraft carrier

                      This is if his deck is strong enough. And it will not be a light aircraft carrier, but a serious misunderstanding, because an aircraft on a deck does not yet make a ship an aircraft carrier
                      Quote: Tomahawk
                      And do not forget that the British Air Force has an air force base throughout Europe, the Russian fleet will still need to be sent to Britain.

                      (heavy sigh) Britain has NO air bases "all over Europe." This is not her airbase, but the airbases of other countries, which in the event of a local conflict between Russia and England will naturally take a neutral position. But the main thing is not this, but that England has NO combat aircraft in its fleet. So who are you going to base on these bases is a mystery.
                      No, well, you can certainly recall 140 air force eurofighters, but this is the case ... The problem is that England has absolutely no protection against massive attacks by cruise missiles. And we can arrange this without entering the radius of interception of Eurofighter. Therefore, these fighters - the last hope of England and they will not be sent to any Europa - will guard their airspace.
                      Quote: Tomahawk
                      You just look at the T-90 and T-72 do not see any similarities? Or go to the Internet and you will find out that the T-90 is a deep modification of the T-72.

                      You just don’t understand what you are writing about. Apply your logic to the Challenger 2, which was created on the basis of the Challenger, a tank of the second half of the 70s of the last century, and which, in turn, was created on the basis of the Chiften tank of the 60s. Outwardly, by the way, they are very similar :))))
                      The question is that taking the majority of modern tanks, we can easily trace its continuity with models of the 60-70s. For example, the world's best production tank (Leopard 2A6) is nothing more than a modernization of the Leopard 2 developed in the late 60s. And this did not prevent him from being the best :)))
                      Quote: Tomahawk
                      Have you seen “Admiral Kuznetsov?” Look and you’ll be horrified at what conditions the crew lives there

                      If we talk about the 90s, then yes, but now everything is much better, so there is no need to be horrified.
                      Quote: Tomahawk
                      Do you know what a storm is?

                      I know. We have a 9-point storm passed 350-ton destroyers of the second Pacific squadron.
                      Quote: Tomahawk
                      And look at the number of British submarines that are currently in service, are there few of them for the defense of Britain?

                      Three Estudes and three Trafalgar, despite the fact that the Etudes are not fully combat-ready and despite the fact that I do not know if someone is undergoing current repairs now.
                      Even the Northern fleet alone, its Severodvinsk, two Anteys, and eight multi-purpose nuclear submarines of which three “Pike-Bs” (this I cut the ships on the go, without those under repair) covers the British nuclear submarines like a bull sheep. And if you recall the presence of another five diesel-electric submarines of project 887 ....
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 July 2017 13: 50
                        +3
                        So the British nuclear submarines are not that few - categorically insufficient.
                        Quote: Tomahawk
                        And why did you forget to mention In your stories About Vengards with Trident-2, do you want me to say about the power of their salvo?

                        Why mention them? To completely disgrace the KVMF or what? You are welcome:)))
                        Formally, Wangard carrying the midday version of the Trident is great and mighty, having 16 mines can drag 16 * 14 = 224 100-kiloton warheads. And our Dolphin 667BDRM surpasses the same 16 missiles, but having not 14 but only 10 hundred-ton warheads, i.e. only 160 charges instead of 224 for the Englishwoman.
                        The only problem is that at the disposal of the UK there are only about 225 warheads, of which about 160 are in constant readiness. And we only have five Dolphins on the SF (on the go) with Sineva and older missiles, so the ratio of the KVMF and SF nuclear volleys is either 225 or 160 versus 800. laughing About all kinds of Boreas with Clubs, I basically don’t mention :))))
                        And this is not counting the rest of the arsenal of the Russian Federation.
                        Quote: Tomahawk
                        And by the way, if you are not too lazy, go to Wikipedia and find out that the Termite missiles have not yet been removed from service in the Russian Federation.

                        You continue to please me, thank you! :))) If you are not lazy, google a little and find out that the Termite rocket has NEVER been put on submarines laughing They equipped surface ships and the coastal complex "Rubezh"
                        And on the armament of our submarines was the P-70 Amethyst - in general, similar in capabilities to the Termite, so I did not at first point out your glaring mistake. After that, the P-120 Malachite missile entered service with the USSR nuclear submarines, however, the nuclear submarines capable of carrying them were withdrawn from the fleet in the 90s. And now the Russian Navy is armed with P-700 Granit missiles (Antei) and multi-purpose nuclear submarines capable of firing Granat and Caliber anti-ship missiles with cruise missiles.
                        And P-15 Termite - yes he is, still in service :)))))))
                    2. Tomahawk
                      Tomahawk 30 July 2017 15: 12
                      +1
                      Comrade, do you really think that the NATO countries will not send the British Air Force their air force bases in case of war? Look at the combat radius of the Tornado or Eurofighter and add the launch range of the anti-ship missiles, at least twice the launch range of the Caliber laughing .Yes, the Russian Federation is simply unlucky if NATO does not openly fight for Britain, one of the founders of NATO. Russia will at least be afraid of Britain’s nuclear retaliation. And in case of war with the Russian Federation, the British will not save on missiles. And type 45 will not be lacking in the Tomahawks. And by the way, let me remind you about Queen Elizabeth type carriers, there will be 2 laughing .Yes and with whom to compare with Kuznetsov? He didn’t work out his life until the end, he broke down and was sent for indefinite repair. Here you and the Miracle Aircraft carrier, it’s good that they didn’t fall apart on the way home. F-35B will most likely the latest American anti-ship missiles AGM-158C LRASM, which have no equal in the Russian Navy.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 July 2017 21: 21
                        +3
                        Quote: Tomahawk
                        Comrade, do you really think that the NATO countries do not send the British Air Force their air force bases in case of war?

                        Naturally, no. Otherwise, it will be a NATO war with the Russian Federation.
                        Quote: Tomahawk
                        Look at the combat radius of the Tornado or Eurofighter and add the launch range of the RCC, at least twice the launch range of the Caliber

                        Those. Is 600 km of Eurofighter’s combat radius (in strike version) + 280 km of harpoon miraculously superior to 2500 km of caliber? What did you have in mathematics school? :))))
                        Quote: Tomahawk
                        Yes, the Russian Federation is simply unrealistic if NATO will not openly fight for Britain, one of the founders of NATO

                        Watching what the conflict will come out for. We consider the hypothetical situation of the conflict between England and the Russian Federation. And as I understand it, your argument that the KVMF is stronger than the Navy of the Russian Federation has come down to the fact that "but for NATO all NATO will harness" :))))
                        Which, in fact, was required to prove
                        Quote: Tomahawk
                        Russia is at least afraid of nuclear retaliation of Britain

                        Rather, the opposite. All of England’s nuclear potential is capable of causing heavy losses to the Russian Federation, no more, and a quarter of the Russian nuclear arsenal will completely destroy England.
                        Of course, the head of the Russian Federation is far from Joseph Vissarionovich and not even Nikita Sergeyevich, but Churchill is far from in power in England.
                        Quote: Tomahawk
                        And in the event of a war with the Russian Federation, the British will not save on missiles. And type 45 will have no shortage of Tomahawks

                        In the event of a conflict, "not saving on missiles" will be a little late, because in order to put the Tomahawks on the same Daring, they will have to be equipped with VPU Mk41, which will not be taken from the air - they must first be produced, then delivered to England, installed to destroyers, train crews ... At least two years. The same applies to the production of conventional missiles - this is a fairly lengthy process, measured in many months. So there’s nothing to talk about.
                        You would, my friend, take your pink glasses off for a second and look at REALITY. In 2018, the UK removes Rocket Harpoon and Sea Skua from combat duty - they have expired. So starting from next year, the KVMF generally loses its anti-ship capabilities - it only has guns left.
                        But you continue to dream of the superiority of the British fleet over the Russian :)))
                        Quote: Tomahawk
                        And by the way, I’ll remind you about Queen Elizabeth type carriers, there will be 2

                        (heavy sigh) There will be two aircraft carriers, only the second is supposed to be used as a helicopter carrier laughing Do you even know anything about the KVMF, or not? :))
                        Well, Christmas trees, do you even google the procurement program F-35. The British are going to bring the number of F-35s to 24 (twenty-four) only in 2023, i.e. in 6 years! And here you are telling amazing stories about 2 British AUG in 2-3 years laughing good
                        Quote: Tomahawk
                        And with whom to compare with “Kuznetsov?” He did not work out his service life to the end, he broke down and was sent for indefinite repair

                        "Kuznetsov" sent for scheduled repairs :))) By the way, take an interest in your spare time, how much time do American aircraft carriers and French spend in repairs :))))
                        Of course, Kuznetsov is not the treasures of Peru. He has problems with the chassis (although after the last repair he was rumored to have given 20 knots completely), but this is what will be corrected during the current repair. And he will come out of him in three years, maybe four, just when Quinn Elizabeth’s 16-20 F-35 air group will gather.
                        Quote: Tomahawk
                        The F-35B will most likely carry the latest American anti-ship missiles AGM-158C LRASM, which have no equal in the Russian Navy.

                        About "no equal" - I don’t even want to comment, we will leave this statement to your general enthusiasm for Western weapons. I only note that the achievement of the effectiveness of LRASM by the Soviet “Granite” is extremely doubtful. And yet - the Russian Federation has serious missile defense systems that can stop anti-ship cruise missiles, but the British can only count on Deringa.
            3. Tomahawk
              Tomahawk 30 July 2017 21: 49
              0
              Comrade, the range of the RCC Caliber is 500 km, you’ll shoot so far on land. And please read the TTX AGM-158C LRASM, for you I’ll tell you: launch range: 900 km, warhead: 454 kg. And compare with Granite. Go with the caliber laughing . In your opinion 225 YB can only cause "serious damage"? Do you yourself understand what you are saying? Even the loss of Moscow will be a terrible blow for the Russian Federation, and here 225 YB.
              1. Tomahawk
                Tomahawk 30 July 2017 21: 54
                0
                And comrade, I’ll open my eyes to you. If the Russian Federation declares war on Britain, war with NATO is guaranteed.
                1. Tomahawk
                  Tomahawk 30 July 2017 22: 04
                  0
                  Have you read anything about Queen Elizabeth type aircraft carriers? Nobody will turn the second ship into a helicopter carrier. This was considered the option with the second ship, due to contract problems in the USA, but now there are no such problems, so the second ship will be a full-fledged aircraft carrier laughing .
                  1. Tomahawk
                    Tomahawk 31 July 2017 01: 37
                    0
                    Yes, and what to argue about. Corvettes with Caliber will not do much useful, there are too few corvettes in the northern fleet of the Russian Federation, and they have few missiles, for strategic purposes, maximum coast protection. The only surface threat to the Navy is Peter the Great, but this goal probably it will be one of the first for the British Trident 2. That is, as I already said, submarines will be the headache of the Navy.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 July 2017 19: 06
                      +3
                      Quote: Tomahawk
                      Comrade, RCC Caliber - 500 km

                      The radius of the RCC Caliber is classified and not disclosed :)))
                      Quote: Tomahawk
                      And please familiarize yourself with the TTX AGM-158C LRASM, for you I will tell you: launch range: 900 km, warhead: 454 kg. And compare with Granite

                      The launch range does not matter much, since neither the KVMF nor the Navy of the Russian Federation has any reliable means for monitoring the surface situation at a distance of 500 km from the ship’s warrant and beyond. In addition, it should be understood that LRASM shooting at 900+ km is available only for Americans, but not for the British. As for the warhead, the LRASM with its 454 kg to Granite, with its 750 kg as to China on karachok.
                      But the main advantage of Granites is that the Russian Federation has Granites, but England does not have LRASM laughing
                      Quote: Tomahawk
                      In your 225 YaB can only cause "serious damage"? Do you yourself understand what you say?

                      Unlike you - yes, I understand. The Russian Federation has 1100 cities, and to burn a city of over one million (and even four to five) 100 kilotons will not be enough.
                      In England, the status of cities have as many as 69 settlements. In reality, they have more cities, but not an order of magnitude. And we have almost 1800 warheads on combat duty (meaning - they can be immediately used)
                      But the saddest thing for England is not this. The fact is that England has not been a self-sufficient country for 100500 years, and in order to maintain its current population it needs a constant supply of everything, including food. It is enough to burn 44 large English coastal cities (with their ports, infrastructure, etc.) - and England will be reliably cut off from the outside world. So the next war of England after the nuclear war with the Russian Federation is a civil war. For the food.
                      But we, of course, are not so cruel - the number of nuclear weapons in the Russian Federation guarantees the impossibility of the emergence of cannibalism on Foggy Albion laughing
                      Quote: Tomahawk
                      And comrade, I’ll open my eyes to you. If the Russian Federation declares war on Britain, war with NATO is guaranteed.

                      What does this have to do with the comparison of the Armed Forces of England and the Russian Federation? :)))))
                      Quote: Tomahawk
                      Have you read anything about Queen Elizabeth type aircraft carriers? No one will turn the second ship into a helicopter carrier.

                      The Russian language was written to you - 24 F-35V until 2023. And this is what the British consider to be an accelerated purchase, i.e. it still may not pass.
                      In other words, in the next 6 years, the second AB is doomed to be a helicopter carrier. The aircraft carrier, so you know, is not only a ship, but also an air group, which the British for the second ship at such a pace and by 2030 will not collect.
                      Quote: Tomahawk
                      The only surface threat to the Navy is Peter the Great, but this goal will probably be one of the first for the British Trident-2.

                      Trident can not shoot at surface ships :)))
                      1. Tomahawk
                        Tomahawk 31 July 2017 20: 48
                        0
                        Comrade, the radius of action of the RCC Caliber in the export version is somewhere around 300 km, but 500 km for its fleet as a maximum.
                        Comrade Britons will shoot Trident-2 not only in Russian cities, but also in the warehouses of Russian YaB, but even 225 YaB is enough to destroy almost all cities of the Russian Federation with more than a million inhabitants, although I do not live in Russia, but I know how many cities you have "millionaires", the Russian Federation will simply not have anything to fight for, maximum revenge.
                        And you didn’t know that Britain and the United States had a "special relationship"? If necessary, they will deliver the AGM-158C LRASM with a range of 900 km.
                        About Peter the Great. The comrade of the British also has its own satellite constellation, Tridents-2 can hit the area, determining its location using satellites.
                      2. Tomahawk
                        Tomahawk 31 July 2017 20: 52
                        0
                        Comrade, even if the second ship is a helicopter carrier until 2023, the Russian Federation will still be inferior to the KVMS in this component of the troops, and given the tension in NATO’s relations with the Russian Federation, the British will definitely not “slow down” the purchase of the F-35B.
    2. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 28 July 2017 13: 24
      +2
      And tell me when Great Britain or the United States "merged"?
      1. tanit
        tanit 30 July 2017 04: 20
        +1
        Quote: Tomahawk
        And tell me when Great Britain or the United States "merged"?

        Vietnam - have you heard, no? wink - USA. India is now not like a colony of Great Britain.
        I understand that for you personally it was an epic victory. laughing
        1. Tomahawk
          Tomahawk 30 July 2017 08: 22
          0
          Do you know the story? In Vietnam, they lost because of the public, and so they fought normally, and while the US troops were in South Vietnam, South Vietnam existed, do not confuse a military loss with a way out of the war due to public opinion.
          Well, the British like the Indians did not lose in the war. Peacefully gave independence. You can see the reasons yourself.
    3. Suhov
      Suhov 28 July 2017 21: 52
      +1
      Quote: Antianglosaks
      They will choke economically, although geeks have no time at all.

      And from here in more detail.
      The truth is interesting.
      hi
  8. pavelty
    pavelty 28 July 2017 10: 55
    +5
    That is, thanks to those tagged for my happy childhood in the 90s?)) But this is a different story ...
    1. DenZ
      DenZ 28 July 2017 11: 30
      +4
      Say thanks to parents. Many survived in the 90s.
  9. A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 28 July 2017 13: 39
    +1
    Anyway, but the crisis was resolved. A direct telephone line was installed between the leadership of the United States and the USSR to instantly solve urgent problems. However, neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev is not forgiven. In the USA, they considered their president a weakling who had bent under the Russians, a year later he was killed under very strange circumstances. Fidel Castro was angry that the Russians and the staff members decided everything without him, and he called the compromise, which was the solution to the crisis, a betrayal of the Revolution. In the USSR, Khrushchev was sharply criticized (“Now we’re taking off our pants to the West. It turns out that the main goal is not a struggle against imperialism, but a struggle for peace.”) , they say, and the option of physical elimination ...
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 28 July 2017 17: 47
      +4
      Both were not removed for this.
    2. utyutkin
      utyutkin 29 July 2017 14: 38
      0
      you pay too much attention to external effects
      Quote: A. Privalov
      In the USSR, Khrushchev was sharply criticized ("Now we have removed our pants before the West. It turns out that the main goal is not the struggle against imperialism, but the struggle for peace."), But two years later they dismissed "for mistakes, voluntarism and inept leadership", although it was considered , they say, and the option of physical elimination ...

      if someone was really against the rocket, they would have stood on the cube to this day!
      1. A. Privalov
        A. Privalov 29 July 2017 18: 23
        0
        History, dear Utytyulkin, does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. The crisis was resolved by a bilateral withdrawal of missiles. Point. No "if", then do not pass, alas ...
  10. Midshipman
    Midshipman 28 July 2017 15: 12
    +4
    As I understand it, the author suggests taking an example from Gorbachev? Well, why, why only medium and short range - all missiles under the knife, well, all sorts of ships and tanks at the same time, all the same, they will not be of any use. But world peace is beauty! Yes, and without Russia. American generals standing ovation.
  11. Old26
    Old26 28 July 2017 15: 38
    +3
    Quote: midshipman
    Dear VO readers, the article provides inaccurate data. During the Cold War, Soviet submarines were off the coast of the United States whose mission was to deliver a nuclear strike against established targets.

    Dear comrade. In the region of the North American continent there were exclusively diesels, who could not break the blockade under the threat of destruction. EMNIP in the amount of 4. What could they do? strike a USS ship?

    Quote: Antianglosaks
    Yellow stone and huge tsunamis on both coasts will not leave a chance for Amers.

    Maybe it’s enough to tell the same stories every time?
  12. NordUral
    NordUral 28 July 2017 17: 45
    0
    Not everyone in the West, it’s only a pity that those who know and understand less and less.
  13. Music
    Music 28 July 2017 18: 09
    0
    The Cold War - 2.0 is cooler than 1.0.
  14. Old26
    Old26 29 July 2017 00: 14
    +3
    Quote: midshipman
    By 1989, the USSR Navy had 39 nuclear submarines, and in terms of the number of submarines we were significantly ahead of the United States. Each submarine was armed with 16 ballistic missiles.

    But the article is about the Caribbean crisis. About 1962, and not about 1989. Moreover, in those years, there were boats that carried more and less missiles. Project 941 carried 20, project 667BD - 12 missiles. There were a couple of Project 658 boats with 3 missiles.

    Quote: midshipman
    By 1989, the USSR Navy had 39 nuclear submarines

    For 1989, we had over 60 nuclear missile boats
  15. Dead duck
    Dead duck 29 July 2017 16: 33
    +10
    It was thanks to Gorbachev that a compromise was reached that determined the possibility of signing the Treaty on the Elimination of Medium and Short Range Missiles (INF) in the 1987 year.

    Eva like .... EBN-and for the company you need to ascribe and "faces can be written" ... "like saints" ... benefactors.
  16. Arkady Kharitonov
    Arkady Kharitonov 29 July 2017 20: 30
    +2
    Gorbachev, if anything, deserves a rope around his neck. Such an ok should not live anymore. Betrayal of such magnitude must be punished. Then Vlasov is resting
  17. Yugra
    Yugra 30 July 2017 12: 47
    0
    They got all the crawlers. Go, buy a gun and shoot yourself. Alarmists ...
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter 30 July 2017 12: 53
      +2
      Quote: Ugra
      Go buy a gun and shoot yourself. Alarmists ...

      not lordly this thing laughing
  18. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 31 July 2017 08: 58
    +1
    Our most important advantage is that, as always, we have nothing to lose. And for this we are ready to give our lives, if only to take the enemy with us to the grave. And there, even if the whole world is in ruin.
    No one in our country is sure about tomorrow. From the oligarch to the beggar. Therefore, all temporary workers, respectively, life and behavior such.
  19. Old26
    Old26 31 July 2017 10: 01
    +3
    Of course, I "beg your pardon" that your highly learned dispute with Andrei from Chelyabinsk is interfering, but unfortunately Andrei is right for you in many ways.
    Let's figure out what you wrote

    Quote: Tomahawk
    ravine, the radius of the RCC Caliber is 500 km, this is the ground you will shoot so far ..

    Yes, the 3M54-type anti-ship missile range is indeed less than 500 km, but you compare warm to soft. Take the aviation version for your part and compare it with the ship version with ours. There is no logic in this

    Quote: Tomahawk
    And please read the TTX AGM-158C LRASM, for you I’ll tell you: launch range: 900 km, warhead: 454 kg. And compare with Granite. Go with the caliber.

    Well. let's compare. In the export version, the "Caliber" really has a limitation on the range and weight of the warhead. But not in the version that is intended for their own needs. What range will the aviation Caliber be you know?
    Further. You are again comparing warm to soft. Aircraft missiles from a ship. But still, if you compare the "Granite" with the AGM-158C, then the comparison will not be in favor of the AGM-158C. The only thing in which it will surpass the old "Granite" - exclusively in the firing range. In terms of speed, it will lose to “granite” by 2-2,5 times. The weight of the warhead is almost 2 times.
    When attacking ships, the range is secondary. In any case, target designation from the carrier to such a range is extremely difficult to obtain. But speed and all warheads are far from the last thing. And in this, the AGM-158C loses to “granite” and is equal (in speed and warhead) to “Caliber”. And even then in the subsonic version ..
    But if we consider all the same exclusively aviation variants of anti-ship missiles, then we have an option that England does not have. This is simply an anti-ship version of missiles of type X, the "100th series." experience is already there. At one time, they redesigned the airborne-based missile launcher of the Kyrgyz Republic X-55, we get about four times less range than the X-55, but with twice as much warhead. What prevents you from doing this now? Absolutely nothing...

    Quote: Tomahawk
    And comrade, I’ll open my eyes to you. If the Russian Federation declares war on Britain, war with NATO is guaranteed.

    If you carefully read Article 5 of the NATO Charter, it doesn’t talk about the "automatic" entry into the NATO war in a conflict with one of the NATO member countries

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Yes, and what to argue about. Corvettes with Caliber will not do much useful, there are too few corvettes in the northern fleet of the Russian Federation, and they have few missiles, for strategic purposes, maximum coast protection. The only surface threat to the Navy is Peter the Great, but this goal probably it will be one of the first for the British Trident 2. That is, as I already said, submarines will be the headache of the Navy.

    They will do a lot of useful things within those tasks. which are set in front of ships of this class. No one will send them to attack the KVMF, which at that time will be located, for example, in its bases. But in the zone of their responsibility - they are quite a serious adversary, which will have to be reckoned with ...
    Well, what about the defeat of “Peter” and his defeat by “Trident-2” - honestly neighing. You cheered me up before the start of the working day. There is such a Russian expression - FROM GUNS ON SPARROWS. Your phrase about the defeat of "Peter" by intercontinental ballistic missiles from this series. I won’t even say that they’ve never been tested as an anti-ship missile ... It’s the same as saying that the Voivode or Sarmat would strike at the British aircraft carrier

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Formally, Wangard carrying the midday version of the Trident is great and mighty, having 16 mines can drag 16 * 14 = 224 100-kiloton warheads. And our Dolphin 667BDRM surpasses the same 16 missiles, but having not 14 but only 10 hundred-ton warheads, i.e. only 160 charges instead of 224 for the Englishwoman.

    Quote: Tomahawk
    In your 225 YaB can only cause "serious damage"? Do you understand what you are saying? Even the loss of Moscow will be a terrible blow to the Russian Federation, and here 225 YaB.

    Let's separate the flies from the cutlets.
    To begin with, Andrew was a little mistaken. Like you in this phrase. I will not even say that for 2016-2017 the arsenal of British nuclear weapons standing on the database decreased to 120-125 EMNIP. Leave this figure alone. She in our conversation is actually not significant. Andrey’s mistake is that he incorrectly calculated the number of YBGs on Trident. Yes, theoretically, the Trident can carry 14 goals, but even the United States has never had this. There were no missiles with so many BZs on the DB. Another thing in the previous contract was its own rules for offsetting the knowledge base on the medium.
    This is not about that. In Britain, even if you do not take into account the last reduction was TOTAL 225 charges for the Tridents. TOTAL .
    In reality, the scheme for using British missile-carrying boats is as follows. On combat duty at sea is ONE a boat. Still TWO boats are ready to go to sea after 10 hours - 3 days depending on the degree of readiness. Another boat is undergoing scheduled repairs and its readiness to exit is from 1 to 3 months. Okay, let's take the lower limit of 30 days.
    But that is not all. Of the 16 mines on the boat, one is exclusively for test launches and on duty EMPTY. Yet ONE MINING contains a rocket with ONE warhead. This is the case when a British lion needs to demonstrate its determination to launch a nuclear strike on any "PAPUASII". In such cases, the British are going to get by with one blow. The remaining mines on the boat carry missiles with FOUR CHARGES.
    Moreover, the British Admiralty is now considering options when the boat will not be fully loaded with missiles, for example, their number will be in the range of 4-8, but each missile will no longer have 4 BGs, but more.

    Therefore, no damage would be expected from Britain in 225 nuclear strikes against Russia. A maximum of 57 charges that Britain is ready to use immediately.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 July 2017 21: 16
      +3
      Thanks for the detailed answer!
      To be honest, I just didn’t have the patience to paint it all :))) I didn’t know about the placement of the Tridents on Vengards, thanks all the more! hi drinks
      And yes, about our ... "highly learned" dispute ... appreciated the irony! laughing
      1. Tomahawk
        Tomahawk 1 August 2017 21: 29
        0
        Andrei let's also admit that the Russian Federation will not attack Britain, at least because of the danger of losing large cities.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 August 2017 20: 38
          0
          Quote: Tomahawk
          Andrei let's also admit that the Russian Federation will not attack Britain, at least because of the danger of losing large cities.

          Argentina attacked. AND?
          In fact, we will not attack England for a much more prosaic reason - it didn’t fall sideways to us, why should we attack it? England is even more embarrassed to attack us (this is simply the suicide of a nation). If a conflict is possible between us, then for some external reasons (such as the Falklands), no one will start a nuclear catastrophe and both sides will solve issues with conventional weapons
      2. Tomahawk
        Tomahawk 1 August 2017 23: 22
        0
        And in the end I will quote Khrushov’s words (certainly not word for word, but the essence will be) - “Even the loss of two large cities will give America some thought about the necessity, usefulness of the war with the USSR, and about the price that they will have to pay for the much more destroyed USSR. " The British are acting according to the same scheme, although under all circumstances Trident-2 is enough for them, not only to Moscow and St. Petersburg ....
      3. Tomahawk
        Tomahawk 1 August 2017 23: 38
        0
        Moreover, now the KVMF is in the process of formation, and it will work at full capacity sometime in 2020-2023, when they, under the "shield" of the strategic nuclear forces, will complete their Estuary-class submarines, Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers and a new type of frigates. But the Fleet of the Russian Federation has no such bright prospects.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 August 2017 20: 52
          +1
          Quote: Tomahawk
          Moreover, now the KVMF is in the process of formation, and in full power it will work somewhere in 2020-2023 ... ... But the Fleet of the Russian Federation has no such bright prospects.

          At best, he will enter at best in the year 2024-25, when the last Astyut will be operational and the first of the aircraft carriers will assemble an air group of 24 aircraft, but the second AB will still be helicopter-bearing. Perhaps by this time one or two frigates of the project 26 will go into operation
          At the same time, the modernized Antey (72 caliber on board) Shchuki B, the seven newest Severodvinsk, a bunch of updated 636.3 Varshavyanks and, it seems, some amount of submarines with VNEU or lithium-ion batteries will counter it. .. Two updated nuclear missile cruisers (by the time not only Nakhimov, but the Great have time to upgrade), the newest frigates 22350, and possibly already 22350M, new corvettes ... And, of course, the modernized Kuznetsov, where would it be without him :) ))))
          So the gap in combat power between us and the British will only widen. And - not in favor of the British
      4. Tomahawk
        Tomahawk 2 August 2017 01: 04
        0
        Moreover, you won’t shoot at Caliber ships for 500 km, please believe at least Wikipedia on ground targets .. And what are you trying to prove to me? Will the corvettes with Caliber win the war? Corvettes are part of the "mosquito fleet" that is, it is intended for coastal defense. Comrade, count the number of cities of "millionaires" in Russia, even the cash (which Britain is ready to launch) is enough to destroy a large part of the urban population, and if Trident-2 gets into warehouses with nuclear warheads, believe me, when thousands of unused nuclear warheads of Russia detonate the further launch of Trident-2 in this area will be unnecessary. And Trident-2 will launch more than one YaB on Peter the Great, they will launch Trident-2 in a staggered manner, and Peter the Great will be almost impossible to dodge. Do you want war with Great Britain or not?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 August 2017 21: 00
          +1
          I have already answered all the rest, but THIS!
          Quote: Tomahawk
          and if Trident-2 gets into warehouses With nuclear warheads, believe me, when thousands of unused nuclear warheads of Russia detonate, then the further launch of Tridentes-2 in this area will be unnecessary

          wassat good
          What other "unutilized" nuclear warheads? :))) Are you out of your mind? :))) Yes, we would have been torn for failure to fulfill the disarmament treaties a long time ago :)))
          This time. Second, the nuclear warhead will not detonate from a nuclear device explosion. You would know that if you defeated physics at least within the school curriculum.
          Quote: Tomahawk
          But Trident-2 will be launched on Peter the Great more than one nuclear weapon, they will be launched on Trident-2 staggered

          Fortunately for England, lunatics who would land in the sea of ​​nuclear warheads in a "square-nested" way while they are not allowed to control weapons :))))
          The respected Stary26 listed many things for you, but he didn’t even identify half of the problems with using ICBMs against surface ships.
          1. Tomahawk
            Tomahawk 2 August 2017 22: 20
            0
            If you think that other YANs do not detonate from the YB explosion, then I have bad news for you. And thousands of old Soviet YBs cannot be disposed of in seconds.))
            I’ll open my eyes to you, “Peter the Great” will never be equal in range to a carrier. Corvettes are not ships for attack. “Admiral Kuznetsov” is no longer a new ship, and it won’t last for a long time, especially the quality of the “repair” of “Admiral Kuznetsov” of the Russian Federation I’ve already checked off the coast of the SAR and the Russian Federation doesn’t have experience in using AUG in a local war. Ultimately, if there is a local conflict between Britain and the Russian Federation (although it will not exist, the doctrine of both states says that if an armed conflict occurs with a state that has Nuclear weapons, then they automatically use their nuclear weapons. So they will decide by negotiations.)))), The Russian Federation will remain with numerous submarines, what I already said at the beginning. And the coast of the Russian Federation will be guarded by a "mosquito fleet", the defense of which is almost impossible to break through , but probably another mosquito fleet or nuclear weapons.
            1. Tomahawk
              Tomahawk 3 August 2017 01: 18
              0
              At the end of math laughing There are 500000 cities with a population of 37 or more in the Russian Federation, and Trident-2 that Britain can apply immediately, according to Stary 26-57, is enough. And what about the rest of the Russian Federation? Anarchy, hunger, even list laziness.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 August 2017 19: 58
                +1
                Quote: Tomahawk
                If you think that other YABs do not detonate from the explosion of YaB, then I have bad news for you

                Do not detonate. Go to learn materiel and do not disgrace.
                Quote: Tomahawk
                And thousands of old Soviet YABs cannot be disposed of in seconds

                Yeah. Trillions of tons.
                Quote: Tomahawk
                I’ll open my eyes to you, “Peter the Great” will never be equal in range to a carrier

                So then - with an aircraft carrier. And we're talking about Queen Elizabeth. Do you even know what ensures the "range" of an aircraft carrier? Surprise is EW and AWACS aircraft capable of reconnaissance at a distance of at least 900 km from an aircraft carrier. But this is bad luck - the British Queens have none of this.
                Quote: Tomahawk
                Moreover, the quality of the "repair" of "Admiral Kuznetsov" of the Russian Federation has already been checked off the coast of the SAR

                (shrug) And what's wrong?
                Quote: Tomahawk
                and the Russian Federation does not have experience in using AUG in a local war.

                It was not before going to Syria. Now it is.
                Quote: Tomahawk
                At the end of the mathematics laughing. There are 500000 cities with a population of 37 or more in the Russian Federation, and Trident-2 that Britain can apply immediately, according to Old 26 -57, is enough

                (heavy sigh) In England, less than 70 locations have city status. And in Russia there are almost 1800 charges on combat duty, not counting tactical nuclear weapons. That's all the math
                1. Tomahawk
                  Tomahawk 3 August 2017 20: 59
                  0
                  Comrade, you yourself go to the materiel, do not disgrace.
                  The “Admiral Kuznetsov” crashed even before reaching its theoretical tenure off the coast of the SAR, a lot of planes from its deck crashed during landing, this is not an experience, it's a shame.
                  Comrade me a screenshot from your Wikipedia, so you know about the Queen Elizabeth Air Group? laughing , there it is assumed the location of the E-2 laughing surprise! laughing
                  I never doubted that the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation could destroy Britain, and you doubted that the strategic nuclear forces of Britain could destroy the cities of the Russian Federation. laughing
                2. Tomahawk
                  Tomahawk 3 August 2017 21: 20
                  0
                  For you a physics course.
                  The atomic nuclei of some isotopes of chemical elements with a large atomic mass (for example, uranium or plutonium), when irradiated with neutrons of a certain energy, lose their stability and decay with the release of energy into two smaller and approximately equal mass fragments - the fission reaction of the atomic nucleus occurs. At the same time, along with fragments with high kinetic energy, several more neutrons are released that can cause a similar process in neighboring atoms of the same kind. In turn, the neutrons formed during their fission can lead to the fission of new batches of atoms - the reaction becomes a chain, acquires a cascade character.
                  That is, when a blast wave shell breaks through, the chain reaction will have new uranium or plutonium nuclei, that is, material for continuing the chain reaction. What did you have in physics school?))))
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 August 2017 17: 48
                    0
                    Dear Tomahawk, I certainly apologize, but this is my last answer to you. You do not know basic things, and I no longer consider it possible to spend time on this discussion.
                    Quote: Tomahawk
                    "Admiral Kuznetsov" crashed without even reaching his theoretical tenure off the coast of the SAR

                    There is no "theoretical term" in nature and Kuznetsov did not break. You, as they say, "heard the ring, but don’t know where it is." Judging by your
                    Quote: Tomahawk
                    a lot of planes from his deck crashed during landing, this is not an experience it is a shame.

                    You are trying to mean the loss of two TAVKr-a planes. Yes, there was a place to be, but there is nothing extraordinary here - this was the first experience of the combat use of carrier-based aviation not only in the Russian Federation, but also in the USSR. And such an experience always comes at a high price - so we paid. Well, having corrected the necessary (by the way, the problems there were more likely not in breakdowns, but in operation errors), we will not allow more than such errors.
                    Quote: Tomahawk
                    Comrade me a screenshot from your Wikipedia, so you know about the Queen Elizabeth Air Group? laughing, there are supposed to be the location of the E-2

                    Do it :))))) And I'll laugh at you :)))
                    You see, what’s the matter - they were going to base E-2 Hokai on Queen Elizabeth. But the problem is that these planes WITHOUT A CATAPULT FROM THE DECK AB CAN NOT TAKE OFF, therefore, as soon as the sirs and peers refused the catapult, they said goodbye to the E-2C, as well as the E-2D :)))
                    One must not know anything about the Navy at all in order to be unaware of this. No, seriously - don’t you know that the AWACS plane necessarily needs a catapult? Or are you not aware that there are no catapults on British AV?
                    In general, the materiel for you is crying with burning tears
                    Quote: Tomahawk
                    For you a physics course.

                    Hmmm ..... Now I perfectly understand Zadornov’s attitude towards the Americans laughing
                    You .... You .... No, I can’t wassat crying laughing
                    In short, what you described is called a CHAIN ​​REACTION. A chain reaction, so you know, is NEVER ATOMIC EXPLOSION.
                    People have learned to “trigger” a chain reaction long before the creation of the atomic bomb. But the problem was that the chain reaction was accompanied by such a sharp release of energy that uranium / plutonium simply does not have time to detonate in full - only a tiny fraction of it detonates, and the remaining mass of the substance is empty, which makes the power of the nuclear bomb not much higher than the usual explosive.
                    To avoid this, the so-called implosive scheme. This detonation scheme involves obtaining a supercritical state by compressing fissile material with a focused shock wave created by an explosion of chemical explosives. So-called explosive lenses are used to focus the shock wave, and detonation is carried out simultaneously at many points with precision accuracy. The creation of such a system for the location of explosives and detonation was at one time one of the most difficult tasks.
                    So, with a nuclear explosion, there will be no "precision accuracy", no compression will take place, a chain reaction will occur in a scanty amount of uranium / pluton, and the rest will simply evaporate.
                    1. Tomahawk
                      Tomahawk 4 August 2017 21: 26
                      0
                      Dear Andrey from Chelyabinsk, I am also not going to waste my time discussing with that person who does not know basic things, namely: T-90 deep modification of T-72, the concept of "length of stay off the coast of the SAR", the launch range of the RCC Caliber ... ..
                      Yes, I admit my mistake, about E-2, I looked at the old data. But the British do not follow the precepts of Zadorny)), they made it possible to remove this add-in at any time and put in a catapult, and make E-2 able to be based on they will have a helicopter AWACS EH101 Merlin, it would seem worse, the speed of the E-2 576 km / h, the EH101 Merlin 278 km / h, but the problem with the EH101 Merlin is the flight range of the EH101 Merlin is 564 km, but E-2 320 km. So everything is not so bad.
                      1. Tomahawk
                        Tomahawk 4 August 2017 21: 42
                        0
                        Comrade as a result of the reaction is a very big mess ....
                        There is of course an implosive scheme, but there is also a cannon scheme and a Swan-like structure which are much more vulnerable than an implosive scheme.
                        But just do not check it, you can check ....
      5. Tomahawk
        Tomahawk 2 August 2017 01: 08
        0
        I hope I didn’t make serious mistakes in the Russian language, if you please say something.
  20. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 31 July 2017 10: 26
    +1
    Few of the current generation know how close our world stood at the edge of the nuclear abyss on Black Saturday, October 27, 1962, at the peak of the Cuban missile crisis.

    The world beat very far from the nuclear abyss in October 1962. Only the American bluff intimidated the Soviet leadership, headed by N.S. Khr. how then Reagan’s bluff intimidated M.S. Gor. Stalin. They couldn’t and couldn’t intimidate Mao Zedong and Kim Jong-un.
    If the US really wants to use nuclear weapons, they will do it suddenly, without warning, as in Hiroshima. And if there is the slightest threat, a retaliatory nuclear strike will take place in the United States, they will behave like doves of the world. Because no one knows how many nuclear strikes are needed, it’s only 2-3, or 5-6, so that mass riots and self-evacuation of the populations begin and their state decays irrevocably.
  21. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 31 July 2017 20: 24
    0
    Quote: Tomahawk
    According to your fleet, which will have 2 carriers, the best in the world

    Two would be enough for us - one is Kuznetsov, and the second is unsinkable Cuba.
  22. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 July 2017 21: 11
    +2
    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade, the radius of action of the RCC Caliber in the export version is somewhere around 300 km, but 500 km for its fleet as a maximum.

    The nonsense of the word is complete. The caliber was made as the development of the Granat cruise missile, the flight range of which was 2500 km back in the 80s. 300 km of export range are dictated exclusively by export restrictions; according to international treaties, export Kyrgyz Republics cannot fly further than 300 km. This is not connected with the range of the original rocket.
    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade British will shoot Trident-2 not only in Russian cities, but also in the warehouses of Russian YaB

    Then nothing will remain on the cities
    Quote: Tomahawk
    And you didn’t know that Britain and the United States had a "special relationship"? If necessary, they will deliver the AGM-158C LRASM with a range of 900 km.

    The Americans themselves will deliver missiles with a range of 900+ kilometers. The problem is that the British cannot shoot them for 900+ kilometers
    Quote: Tomahawk
    About Peter the Great. The comrade of the British also has its own satellite constellation, Tridents-2 can hit the area, determining its location using satellites.

    You can’t even imagine what nonsense they’ve written right now. But so, for reference - the preparation of the control center according to satellite data takes up to 1,5 days.
    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade, even if the second ship will be a helicopter carrier until 2023, the Russian Federation will still be inferior to the KVMS in this component of the troops,

    And do not care - ships of this type in the conflict between England and the Russian Federation will not be useful either
    Quote: Tomahawk
    and given the tension in NATO’s relations with Russia, the British will definitely not “slow down” the purchase of the F-35B.

    This is a matter of finance. Of which the British are VERY few. Yes, their military budget probably exceeds the budget of the Russian Federation, but in fact they don’t have enough for anything. They have a full full crash on anti-ship missiles, a complete failure to upgrade the fleet, constant cuts in the ground forces, and against this background, the desire of those in power to quickly fork out for the F-35V ... they will find the money for it, but the rest of the programs will suffer quite a lot, and they and already suffer
  23. Old26
    Old26 31 July 2017 22: 34
    +1
    Quote: Tomahawk
    About Peter the Great. The comrade of the British also has its own satellite constellation, Tridents-2 can hit the area, determining its location using satellites.


    Dear Tomahawk !!! You just amuse me with your sayings. And in the morning, before work, and in the evening, after a hard day. And now they’re having fun, raising the mood with the phrase about the satellite constellation
    UK.

    UK satellite constellation is 3 Earth Remote Sensing Satellites in polar orbit with an “interval” of 45 degrees. Not the orbits from each other differ by 45 degrees, but they move in the same orbit and the angle between them is 45 degrees (i.e. they go at intervals of 12 minutes). Yes, they cover a strip of 650 km. But what will they do if Petra is not in this zone at that time ??? They overlook the same area FOUR TIMES PER DAY. Background information about satellites is brought to the command of units and formations and is regularly updated. So, knowing the satellite environment, the commander of the Peter is unlikely to climb to where he can be photographed from a satellite. Until even if this happens, it will be possible to confirm its presence in that region only in 12-24 minutes.

    There is also a military optical reconnaissance satellite. In quantity ONE. His resolution is 8 times better, but the only “shot” he captures is a 17 x 17 km square. He will be able to confirm the location in only one turn, and even then, if the ship falls into a 17x17 square. And in an hour and a half at a speed of 60 km / h, Peter will leave 90 km ....

    But suppose the incredible. The satellite spotted the ship, was found among the command and. Idiot, who gave the order to shoot the "Trident"
    Even if he detects it, then it will take him time to transfer data (if there is a repeater). Plus, bringing the order to the boat is about 10 minutes according to the same English. Plus rocket flight. How far will the Trident fly? 1000 km in 2 minutes. So consider it.
    Minutes 5 transfer of coordinates to the control center, 10 minutes bringing the order to the boat. A couple of minutes, entering coordinates into the onboard control system. It's already 17 minutes. The rocket starts. The engine runs for 172 seconds, during which time the rocket will fly to a distance of about 400 km. At what distance will Peter be? Even if 1000 km. So the remaining 600 km is another 1,2 minutes.

    Total: 5 + 10 + 2 + 3 + 1,2 = 21 minutes. TWENTY ONE.. In 21 minutes or 0,35 hours at a speed of 32 knots (60 km / h), Peter will leave for 21 km. And what will a 100-kt warhead do to a ship, exploding at a distance of 21 km from the ship. Yes, let there be at least 400 kt warhead.

    I no longer ask the question, but what to do with the rest of the warheads? Is there really such a p.i.durok who will give the order to shoot a multi-headed missile at the ship ???

    Based on the foregoing, the entire "heavy duty" satellite constellation of Britain is not worth a damn. Thanks again for the high spirits ... laughing
  24. Old26
    Old26 31 July 2017 22: 56
    +1
    Quote: Kostadinov
    The world beat very far from the nuclear abyss in October 1962. Only the American bluff intimidated the Soviet leadership

    Do you think so? It has never been so close to a nuclear abyss as then. Nearly 8-fold superiority in the number of nuclear weapons. 5-fold for ICBMs, 2-fold for SLBMs. The almost 14-fold superiority in atomic bombs on heavy bombers is NOT BLUFF. If something happened, our condition would be much worse than America. If anything out of the ordinary happened. Attack, for example, the American destroyer our boat and drop deep bombs on it - a nuclear torpedo would follow. And that’s all. No one would understand.
    Or shoot down not us scout, but bomber. Same
  25. nikvic46
    nikvic46 1 August 2017 10: 28
    +1
    I perfectly understood the purpose of this article: under Gorbachev, the world breathed a sigh of relief, and the American hawks turned into
    pigeons. Question. The creation of missile defense systems requires the involvement of scientists, and you can’t create this system in a year.
    an agreement to reduce medium- and short-range missiles, did the United States immediately begin to create missile defense? Removing the ambassador to
    Washington Dobrynin, Gorbachev deliberately destroyed the work of those services that ensure the security of the USSR. Even those
    those who worked did not understand the politeness of the secretary general to the states. The secret of some objects broke the trust of those
    countries that built these facilities. I still have a lot of questions for the author, but I have to ask one. Having signed an agreement on strategic reduction, why didn’t Gorbachev go on to create new non-nuclear weapons? The country swelled huge funds for the creation of reusable missiles, although there were other projects. In short, the reign of Gorbachev-
    it was a one-man theater. And what we now have in the World is the result of its activities.
  26. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 1 August 2017 15: 13
    0
    Quote: Old26
    Do you think so? It has never been so close to a nuclear abyss as then. Nearly 8-fold superiority in the number of nuclear weapons. 5-fold for ICBMs, 2-fold for SLBMs. The almost 14-fold superiority in atomic bombs on heavy bombers is NOT A BLUFF. If something happened, our condition would be much worse than America. If anything out of the ordinary happened. Attack, for example, the American destroyer our boat and drop deep bombs on it - a nuclear torpedo would follow. And that’s all. No one would understand. Or shoot down not us scout, but bomber. Same

    The great superiority of the United States in the number of nuclear weapons is only one component of the balance of power. Another and no less important is the US survivability from nuclear strikes, and it is an order of magnitude lower than the survivability of the USSR. The USSR already had the experience of air strikes of similar nuclear strikes - an example of the bombing of Stalingrad (I think it was beaten on August 23, 1942). He proved his ability to endure such strikes. What New Orleans turned into as a result of a predictable natural disaster, the whole world was watching. In addition, most U.S. carriers are bombers. How did their crews react to the dangers of suffering a 40 or 50% loss - almost a suicide attack? By dropping bombs anywhere or landing in non-neutral countries?
  27. Old26
    Old26 1 August 2017 16: 03
    0
    Quote: Kostadinov
    The great superiority of the United States in the number of nuclear weapons is only one component of the balance of power. Another and no less important is the US survivability from nuclear strikes, and it is an order of magnitude lower than the survivability of the USSR. The USSR already had the experience of air strikes of similar nuclear strikes - an example of the bombing of Stalingrad (I think it was beaten on August 23, 1942). He proved his ability to endure such strikes. What New Orleans turned into as a result of a predictable natural disaster, the whole world was watching.


    Stop, sorry to write nonsense. In this case, it was precisely the superiority in the quantity of nuclear weapons that would nullify all the "survivability" of the USSR. The nuclear bombing of a city and the bombing of one city are not the same thing. Read the plans for nuclear attacks on the USSR. It was planned to strike 70 cities of the USSR. And this is not just a city on the map. These are the cities where production was concentrated. Military production.
    To say that the survivability from nuclear strikes in the USSR was an order of magnitude higher than that of the United States — sorry, this is unsubstantiated nonsense. Do not forget that the first strike would involve ICBMs and SLBMs. And this is 364 units against 110 in the USSR. From 110, you still need to subtract 72 SLBMs, which at that time had a range of 1300 km and our submarines would have to operate near the territory of the United States, with all the ensuing consequences in the form of PLO.

    And do not compare the disasters of New Orleans with nuclear bombing. What would Leningrad become as a result of the same cataclysm as in New Orleans. Ask yourself this question before comparing a man-made disaster in the form of a nuclear strike and a natural

    Quote: Kostadinov
    In addition, most U.S. carriers are bombers. How did their crews react to the dangers of suffering a 40 or 50% loss - almost a suicide attack? By dropping bombs anywhere or landing in non-neutral countries?
    .
    You do not consider the Americans as they are Zadornov. Do you really think that the strike of the bombers would not be accompanied by escort of fighters. This is the first. And the second, after a preliminary strike of 3,5 hundred charges on cities and military bases, it would hardly have been available a large number of air defense systems, moreover, managed from the Center.
  28. Old26
    Old26 1 August 2017 18: 52
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And I didn’t know about the placement of the Tridents on Vengards

    You know, when I first read about the placement scheme - I was surprised myself. Well, I knew that they bought not 64 missiles (full ammunition for 4 boats), but 58.
    In 2008, 50 missiles remained, that is, almost BK for only three boats. Since 2011, the number of BG on missiles has been reduced from 48 to 40 on a boat.
    And in the past or the year before last (I don’t remember exactly) I read on the placement options. And they were even painted in which mines and what should be. Moreover, the limit of 40 BG per boat is not the final option. It was planned to redistribute the existing missiles between the boats and leave 12 missiles (maximum option) or 8 missiles (minimum option. But with a large number of BGs on each) on the EMNIP boat
  29. andy.v.lee
    andy.v.lee 1 August 2017 22: 57
    0
    No fuy fuse for yourself!
  30. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 2 August 2017 12: 11
    +1
    The nuclear bombing of a city and the bombing of one city are not the same thing.

    The comparison was done by British and American experts (for example, Ralph Lep). Dropping 2000 tons of bombs of 1 tone each per city = one nuclear bomb of 20 kilotons. On the battlefield, 1 tactical nuclear weapon of 10 kiloton = 4 thousand 155 HE shells (200 tons).
    Nothing in this world is one thing about either, but this does not mean that no comparison can be made. The bombing of Tokyo in March 1945 led to more casualties than Hiroshima. With a child, if the Hiroshimi population took seriously the victim’s alarm, the bit could be at least 10 times smaller. They were not afraid of a lone bomber and did not pay attention to him.
    To say that the survivability from nuclear strikes in the USSR was an order of magnitude higher than that of the United States — sorry, this is unsubstantiated nonsense.

    The USSR has more territory, the population is larger and more often lives in small towns and villages, the industry is less concentrated, civil defense is head and shoulders higher than the city. The USA, the economy is much less dependent on imports, etc. The USSR has already evacuated the population and material assets at an unprecedented scale for the whole world, while the USA only carried out the “evacuation” of New Orleans a few decades later. The socio-economic system of the USSR is much better adapted to cross-border situations than the US system. The USSR was well aware of the damaging effects of nuclear weapons and organically prepared the defense of the population and the economy.
    Of course, everything can be a bit of nonsense for you.
    And do not compare the disasters of New Orleans with nuclear bombing. What would Leningrad become as a result of the same cataclysm as in New Orleans.

    Of course you can’t compare. The population of New Orleans was evacuated in five days, it hit a hundred times easier than it would protect it from a nuclear strike. For the five days that was in New Orleans, not only the population and valuable property were evacuated from Leningrad, but the city’s defenses could strengthen and prevent the consequences of the disaster.
    Do not forget that the first strike would involve ICBMs and SLBMs. And this is 364 units against 110 in the USSR. From 110, you still need to subtract 72 SLBMs, which at that time had a range of 1300 km and our submarines would have to operate near the territory of the United States, with all the ensuing consequences in the form of PLO.

    Will the US also get SLBMs? They, too, had to be beaten, operating from a relatively short range, and each boat carried 16 missiles, which could not be launched in one gulp. Beat and 60 Soviet missiles R-14 and R-12 in Cuba. As Nikita Sergeyevich said, the United States can destroy us 10 times, and my not so bad ones we destroy them only once. Therefore, all children comparison is real nonsense. Even a few nuclear strikes at their United States Meyland are risky and then and now do not prepare. Therefore, no nuclear conflict could be beaten. The United States could eat occupied Cuba with conventional weapons with little chance of success.
    You do not consider the Americans as they are Zadornov. Do you really think that the strike of the bombers would not be accompanied by escort of fighters. This is the first. And the second, after a preliminary strike of 3,5 hundred charges on cities and military bases, it would hardly have been available a large number of air defense systems, moreover, managed from the Center.

    Escort fighters? Maybe a bit on the outskirts of the USSR could it be a bit, but in the Urals and Siberia which fighters will escort the B-52? Can often B-52 turn into fighter jets? This is the first.
    And the second of 364 ICBMs and SLBMs will have 350 successful strikes? In which fairy tale does this happen? How many air defense systems could they destroy, even if all beat the directions to destroy only the air defense? With that, would the American bombers themselves suffer any losses from Soviet nuclear strikes at their airfields? You know that after a 30% loss over Schweinfurt at the end of 1943, American pilots refused to fly over Germany. Over the USSR, they predicted 40-50% of losses and this was not done by Soviet propaganda. What will be the fate of a pilot carrying a nuclear weapon if he fell into the hands of the enemy? You do not count American pilots as fools and kamikazes.
  31. Old26
    Old26 2 August 2017 15: 54
    0
    Quote: Kostadinov
    The comparison was done by British and American experts (for example, Ralph Lep). Dropping 2000 tons of bombs of 1 tone each per city = one nuclear bomb of 20 kilotons. On the battlefield, 1 tactical nuclear weapon of 10 kiloton = 4 thousand 155 HE shells (200 tons).

    Over-the-ear comparisons that take nothing into account. Neither shockwave damage, nor its impact on structures. You can drop 2000 bombs of 1 ton per city, or you can drop one in 20 kt. the result will be uneven

    Quote: Kostadinov
    The USSR has more territory, the population is larger and more often lives in small towns and villages, the industry is less concentrated, civil defense is head and shoulders higher than the city. The USA, the economy is much less dependent on imports, etc. The USSR has already evacuated the population and material assets at an unprecedented scale for the whole world, while the USA only carried out the “evacuation” of New Orleans a few decades later. The socio-economic system of the USSR is much better adapted to cross-border situations than the US system. The USSR was well aware of the damaging effects of nuclear weapons and organically prepared the defense of the population and the economy.

    The population for 1991 was more, I do not argue. 40 million. Area - yes, more - about double. about the civil defense of the USSR and the USA - let's not compare. Using the example of their FEMA, the Russian Ministry of Emergencies was created. In the USSR there were GO troops. In large cities, regiments of civil defense were stationed. In small cities, they were not even close.
    The USSR did indeed evacuate material assets during the war, but in the era of nuclear missile confrontation this was completely meaningless.
    The evacuation during natural disasters equal to the New Orleans of the USSR never conducted. We simply did not have natural disasters of such a massive scale. But unfortunately, all the teachings on civil defense are in the days of the USSR, and in the days of Russia they were purely for show. There were no situations in the USSR to say that a natural disaster of such a level in the USSR did not bring any emergency consequences, but in the USA ....
    In the USSR they knew well about PFJAV, but in the USA they didn’t? Did not know. Look at the chronicle of how American schools acted on a GO signal. And try to find the same chronicle in the USSR. Schoolchildren in the USSR did not have such exercises. There was only the “Theoretical" part.

    Quote: Kostadinov
    Of course you can’t compare. The population of New Orleans was evacuated in five days, it hit a hundred times easier than it would protect it from a nuclear strike. For the five days that was in New Orleans, not only the population and valuable property were evacuated from Leningrad, but the city’s defenses could strengthen and prevent the consequences of the disaster.

    Speaking about the capabilities of countries, it is necessary to compare real, comparable situations, and not to compare a natural disaster and a nuclear strike. Why, speaking of the fact that in New Orleans it was easier than during the nuclear bombing of the USSR, do not take as an example a similar situation that could hypothetically arise in Leningrad and see how and what would be done with us. So no. It is easy to say that a natural disaster is easier than a nuclear disaster. No one disputes this, but it is necessary to compare COMPARABLE.

    Quote: Kostadinov
    Will the US also get SLBMs? They, too, had to be beaten, operating from a relatively short range, and each boat carried 16 missiles, which could not be launched in one gulp. Beat and 60 Soviet missiles R-14 and R-12 in Cuba. As Nikita Sergeyevich said, the United States can destroy us 10 times, and my not so bad ones we destroy them only once. Therefore, all children comparison is real nonsense. Even a few nuclear strikes at their United States Meyland are risky and then and now do not prepare. Therefore, no nuclear conflict could be beaten. The United States could eat occupied Cuba with conventional weapons with little chance of success.

    And why do American subtract? What, the Soviet Union could strike at missile-carrying boats that would be in the Mediterranean, Northern or Norwegian seas and prevent them from launching rockets? So what if the Polaris couldn’t be launched in one gulp? What of this. In 1962, the Americans had Polaris A-1 missiles with a range of 200 and began to enter service with the Polaris A-2 with a range of 2800 km. In our country, the vast majority of missiles in boats had a range of 600 km (and 9 in general 150 km) .In order to strike at the USA, they would have to come close to the territory of the USA, and their boats didn’t have to do this
    There were no 60 R-12 and R-14 missiles in Cuba. Only 24 launchers and 36 R-12 missiles were delivered. 16 launchers and 24 R-14 missiles per cubic missed due to blockade

    Nikita Sergeevich said a lot. And not everything was true. Believe what he said you can with great care. Given the timing of availability and the presence of all missiles on the launch boards, we can say that in the most favorable scenario, we could try to launch no more than 24 R-12 missiles. But here's some embarrassment. At the time of "Black Saturday" in combat readiness (100%) there were only 4 launchers. The rest could be ready within 1-2 days. And the number of aircraft concentrated in that paradise, the number of missiles does not give an unequivocally affirmative answer that all 24, even with full readiness, could not only start, but also reach.

    Are you sure that the United States was not ready to take risks if someone did not hold back? Do you think that a strike on the United States with R-12 missiles would force the United States to capitulate? The prize was huge. The destruction of the Soviet Union, and for this they would have taken the risk of a nuclear strike on their territory.

    There could be a conflict, but thanks to its resolution, the war did not start. The Americans removed their missiles from Europe, pledged not to try to capture Cuba. In response, we pulled out our missiles, which Fidel was extremely dissatisfied with. The conflict did not begin not because the Americans could not or were afraid, namely because of the sobriety of those who decided not to bring the matter to a thermonuclear conflict

    Quote: Kostadinov
    Escort fighters? Maybe a bit on the outskirts of the USSR could it be a bit, but in the Urals and Siberia which fighters will escort the B-52? Can often B-52 turn into fighter jets? This is the first.
    And the second of 364 ICBMs and SLBMs will have 350 successful strikes? In which fairy tale does this happen? How many air defense systems could they destroy, even if all beat the directions to destroy only the air defense? With that, would the American bombers themselves suffer any losses from Soviet nuclear strikes at their airfields? You know that after a 30% loss over Schweinfurt at the end of 1943, American pilots refused to fly over Germany. Over the USSR, they predicted 40-50% of losses and this was not done by Soviet propaganda. What will be the fate of a pilot carrying a nuclear weapon if he fell into the hands of the enemy? You do not count American pilots as fools and kamikazes.

    And why should the B-52 strike at the beginning of the conflict in the Urals? There are rockets for this. And why should there not be 364 successful strikes out of 350 missiles? What, in the USSR there was a missile defense system that could bring down these missiles? This would not happen in a fairy tale, as you think. but in reality. How many air defense systems could they destroy? Yes, in principle, air defense around these facilities. This would be enough for air defense as a single system to cease to exist. And there would be separate foci.
    American bombers are unlikely to suffer significant losses from Soviet nuclear strikes. For the most commonplace reason. If they started, then these bombers will already be in the air.

    You again refer to the experience of the Second World War. And the claim that the Americans refused to fly over Germany. let us leave these statements to the conscience of those who wrote this. True or not, no one knows. Question in drgom. A preemptive strike on the territory of the USSR would have destroyed most of the air bases and air defense systems. Those who remained would have been forced to work "autonomously", sometimes without target designation. In addition, NATO would also not stand still, but would strike at the border zone and at tactical depth.

    What would be the fate of a pilot carrying nuclear weapons on board? Yes, it’s absolutely the same, for them, for us. It is unlikely that he would have survived in captivity. But one should not conclude from this that the Americans would refuse to carry out the order. In Vietnam, many of them were shot down and died and captured, but none of the participants refused to complete the task.
    1. Operator
      Operator 2 August 2017 16: 15
      0
      During the Caribbean crisis, the United States refused to start TMV for a trivial reason - as a result, they lost Western Europe and the Middle East (where the Soviet Army would have entered), exchanging them for destruction in the European part of the USSR and the Urals.

      From an American point of view, such an exchange was not equivalent.
  32. marder7
    marder7 2 August 2017 21: 56
    0
    Tomahawk,
    more than 800 km from the coast of the Caspian Sea to the border of Syria. calibers were launched not at all from the coast and not along the Syrian border guards, so the range of the caliber rocket was more than 900 km.
    1. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 3 August 2017 01: 23
      0
      Marder7, you do not confuse the launch range of the RCC Caliber and Caliber for ground targets, the RCC takes up a lot of space equipment, and the usual caliber agrees, it can hit 800 km.
      1. marder7
        marder7 3 August 2017 14: 59
        0
        Oh! that's just not necessary! what takes up a lot of space there? radar? GOS? do not make me laugh! RCC is even easier for him does not need to go around the terrain. and the ship’s target is more contrast than any ground.
        1. Tomahawk
          Tomahawk 3 August 2017 20: 49
          0
          Marder7 imagine the ship is moving, you need to constantly adjust your flight, that is, finding it is a lot of weight, on ground targets everything is much easier, just “hit” the target’s coordinates in the rocket, and launched, a lot of electronic filling is not necessary, even with this, you don’t put too large missiles on the ships, there are weight frames, maximum for coastal defense
          1. marder7
            marder7 5 August 2017 11: 18
            0
            and you imagine planes moving too belay ! but for some reason homing anti-aircraft missiles are not uncommon! what is difficult to visit on 1) large 2) low speed (compared with the plane) and 3) low-maneuverable target? if there is such a thing as radar?
            no ship is capable of maneuvering with an overload of 10 g and moving at the speed of sound. maximum 50 - 55 km \ h
  33. Serik
    Serik 3 August 2017 17: 28
    0
    Quote: 210ox
    Yes, on his first aspen!

    And hang out the photo on all roads, so that they remember who betrayed us.
  34. Old26
    Old26 3 August 2017 22: 07
    0
    Quote: Tomahawk
    Marder7 imagine a ship moving, you need to constantly adjust your flight, that is, look for it,

    But what about RCC? Immediately from the start of tracking the movement of enemy ships? Write nonsense. RCCs fly in the same way. At the first stage they fly using ANN. Then, in the range of the onboard radar, they go into homing mode. How this happens is different for each RCC. The same Onyx. when firing at maximum range it goes at a marching altitude of 14 km. In the range of the radar, the target is captured and the missile is reduced to a height of 10-15 meters above sea level. When you exit from under the horizon, there is a course adjustment. Given the speed data of such a missile, a ship with a maximum speed of 30 knots can go about 2 km. Correcting the course for the last 15-16 km by a couple of degrees is a matter of seconds.

    If it’s RCC type Caliber. then it goes to the ANN at a low altitude (about 10-20 meters), then it makes a slide, the target is captured and reduced to a height of 3-5 meters. Further - depending on the modification of the rocket

    Quote: Tomahawk
    this is a very big weight

    Do not write nonsense. If Turquoise differs from Caliber in its mass, it is only due to the fact that it has
    1.More fuel and therefore longer range
    2. Heavier warhead

    This is good, by the way, looks on export versions reduced to the same range. Turquoise differs from subsonic Caliber by 2-3 tens of kilograms. But the supersonic version of the "Caliber" is really heavier by about half a ton.
    Electronic filling has a comparable mass. If there is a difference, then in kilograms, and not in tens or hundreds of kilograms.
    And in general, what is "big weight". Soviet (Russian) "Granite" in general 7-ton

    Quote: Tomahawk
    you don’t put too large missiles on ships, there are weight frames, maximum for coastal defense

    It all depends on the ship. Both subsonic and supersonic rockets of the Caliber and Onyx type can be placed on an 800-ton vessel. ENA on heavier ships - you can already put heavier missiles. As such, a weighting frame for missiles does not exist. It all depends on the size of the ship, that's all.

    In Soviet times, there was such a magazine "Young Technician". In it, almost at the end of the magazine, there was a page with the name JUMORON (Humorous answers to the guys - there is nothing to be offended). Here once a question was asked: "Is it possible to build a pocket nuclear reactor"
    Answer: "It all depends on the size of the pocket." So it is with rockets. It all depends on the size of the ship. Of course, Granite cannot be put on the MKP, but Caliber / Onyx is elementary. On the ARCr - there are also "Granites"
  35. Old26
    Old26 3 August 2017 22: 41
    0
    Quote: Tomahawk
    For you a physics course.
    The atomic nuclei of some isotopes of chemical elements with a large atomic mass (for example, uranium or plutonium), when irradiated with neutrons of a certain energy, lose their stability and decay with the release of energy into two smaller and approximately equal mass fragments - the fission reaction of the atomic nucleus occurs. At the same time, along with fragments with high kinetic energy, several more neutrons are released that can cause a similar process in neighboring atoms of the same kind. In turn, the neutrons formed during their fission can lead to the fission of new batches of atoms - the reaction becomes a chain, acquires a cascade character.
    That is, when a blast wave shell breaks through, the chain reaction will have new uranium or plutonium nuclei, that is, material for continuing the chain reaction. What did you have in physics school?))))

    Do you know such an expression as “critical mass”? According to your calculation, all uranium, and the 235th, and 238 and other isotopes will work in general. Like plutonium.
    In our arsenals (storage bases), both for us, for Americans, and for others, too, the retired BGs can be in long-term storage mode, roughly speaking, disassembled, without NO. And there are those that are subject to subsequent disposal. So there is no physical package in principle. This is already a disassembled "for parts" device

    Quote: Tomahawk
    There are 500000 cities with a population of 37 or more in the Russian Federation, and Trident-2 which Britain can apply immediately, according to Stary 26-57, is enough. And what about the rest of the Russian Federation? Anarchy, hunger, even list laziness.

    By the way, do not ascribe to me what I did not say. About 57 missiles, ready for use, there is no talk at all. 58 rockets were purchased. At the beginning of this decade, there were generally 50. Now it is most likely 49. But that's all. An English missile carrier located on the database contains a maximum of 15 missiles. And one of them with one warhead. The total number of warheads on the boat is reduced to 40. That is, only 15 (maximum) missiles can shoot, no more. And this means that there is no question of any 37 cities destroyed. Moreover, there is a huge number of cities in which the population is smaller, but they are more "valuable" in terms of goals than cities with a population of 500 thousand. For example, Ryazan with its 538 thousand population or Nizhny Tagil with its 356 thousand. Or Tula with its 485 thousand, Kaliningrad (467), Sevastopol (429), Magnitogorsk (418). Who is more "valuable" as an object to strike.?

    Further, regarding the destruction of the city. I have a city with an official population of 434 thousand (unofficial - according to the materials of the FMS and PF - more than half a million). The city is on hilly rugged terrain. The difference in height is up to 200-250 meters. The city has an approximate size of 18x20 km. A single strike of 100 kt with a warhead will certainly cause casualties, But they will not be fatal, because the city center is its management. Police, FSB, administration. I live about 2-2,5 km from this center. My house does not even fall into a zone of severe destruction. Of the 5 fire departments of the city - only one will be destroyed. No hospital will be hurt. The Ministry of Emergency Situations and military units capable of putting things in order are also

    Why is it the rest of the Russian Federation will be anarchy, famine, etc., do not tell me? This year, the region today issued EMNIP 9,3 million tons of grain (harvesting is not completed), there have never been and are no elevators in the city. Why be hunger? Yes, at first there may be problems with the provision of medical care, assistance with food. But this depends on those who will implement these measures in emergency mode. City DO NOT DIE in the sense that you mean it, saying that the city will be destroyed. In order to destroy even a city like mine, it is necessary to strike at least 3-5 warheads on it so that you can talk about the destruction. So do not invent something that a priori cannot happen. But Andrey from Chelyabinsk is right. Britain can easily be "planted with square-nesting", bombing it into the Stone Age
    1. Operator
      Operator 3 August 2017 23: 46
      0
      This is only in the absence of a special period.

      If there is a special period, the entire urban population will be dispersed throughout the countryside. In this case, those countries whose population density (the number of inhabitants referred to the area of ​​the country, minus mountains and deserts) are the ones that get the advantage.

      Russia in this regard is ahead of the rest.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 4 August 2017 00: 14
      0
      At least one Vengard fellow at KVMS is on combat duty, he has 16 Trident-2. The second and third “Vengard” can be on combat duty, for a total of 48, although Trident-2 will still be in the port and before departure, there is a place for “Vengard. Trident-2 carries 14 thermonuclear units W76, each 100 kt. Also, the damaging factor is radiation, that is, when you get to your city you’re not very lucky. And just the main driving force in any state is the people, and both sides will be on it, which will cause .... I will tell further
    5. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 4 August 2017 00: 17
      0
      But that’s not even the point. Trident-2 will be launched first in the government and administrative centers, which will lead to anarchy; even the launch of one Trident-2 in the center of Moscow will lead to disorder, there will be massive evacuations, looting, many will be irradiated, many protests, even in the army. After the government will fall at least there will be a civil war for power.
    6. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 4 August 2017 00: 18
      0
      Let’s finish the argument about RCC so that you don’t say the maximum launch range of Onyx is 500 km much lower than the destruction range of the AUG air group.
      But the critical mass is not the main condition for the course of the reaction itself, and in general the "critical mass" will never be "critical" in this reaction there will always be a mess.
    7. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 4 August 2017 04: 43
      0
      Well, to be honest, the Information on Wangards is classified.)) That is, everything we are talking about is just speculation, but I think it is more likely that with such a complicated relationship as now, between Britain and the Russian Federation, the number of Trident -2 at "Vengard" at least increased.
  36. Old26
    Old26 4 August 2017 08: 58
    0
    Quote: Operator
    This is only in the absence of a special period.
    If there is a special period, the entire urban population will be dispersed throughout the countryside. In this case, those countries whose population density (the number of inhabitants referred to the area of ​​the country, minus mountains and deserts) are the ones that get the advantage.
    Russia in this regard is ahead of the rest.

    You know, Andrey, this is all good when on paper, in theoretical calculations. Yes, of course, some kind of evacuation measures can be carried out, but to say that the entire urban population will be dispersed in the countryside is rather presumptuous. I will not even take Moscow or Leningrad as an example. I will focus on my own city. Even without taking into account the presence of defense enterprises requiring continuous operation, imagine how the same official 434 thousand people can be taken out of the city. And not just to withdraw, they need to be placed somewhere, to organize food, medical care (I don’t even remember about schools). And this is not just living quarters for half a million people, even on a regional scale. These are water supply problems, sewage problems and everything else. Moreover, the geographic location of the region is such that some areas will be poorly adapted to move a huge number of people there. It is hardly possible to leave people outdoors when the temperature rises to plus 50 degrees .... Well, etc. Evacuation measures of course can and will take place, but by no means universal, or as you say the entire population of cities. If we take into account that of the 2,8 million inhabitants, the urban population is 58,7% or more than 1,6 million, and the rural population is only 1,2 million, then it is impossible to evacuate more people than live there in rural areas. And this I say in principle about small cities of the region. And what about the evacuation of the same 12 millionth Moscow ??? No, believe me - this is unrealistic. For almost 12 years (from 2002 to 2014) I was the head of the emergency department of the Emergencies Ministry fire department. Periodically, every 3 years, we were given studies. The theory was honestly of little interest, but more applied questions and answers were much more interesting. Therefore, I imagine this problem a little from the inside.

    Quote: Tomahawk
    At least one Vengard fellow at KVMS is on combat duty, he has 16 Trident-2. The second and third “Vengard” can be on combat duty, for a total of 48, although Trident-2 will still be in the port and before departure, there is a place for “Vengard. Trident-2 carries 14 thermonuclear units W76, each 100 kt. Also, the damaging factor is radiation, that is, when you get to your city you’re not very lucky. And just the main driving force in any state is the people, and both sides will be on it, which will cause .... I will tell further

    Come on, dear, do not invent what is not. Term BATTLE STATEMENT implies that a ship (boat) can use its weapons for, for example 10 minutes, after bringing the order to him. In the british navy on BATTLE DUTY is ONE Submarine. ONE. Boats with numbers 2 and 3 are ready to go, but not ready to use. According to the same open documents, their readiness fluctuates. from 10 (TEN) hours to 3 (THREE) days. During this time, the crew should arrive at the duty station, the boat proceed to the arsenal, load SLBMs, take on board supplies (fuel, food, water) and only then follow the patrol zone.
    Your idea is not clear at all, that the 2nd and 3rd Vengard are on the database and they will take more Tridents before the exit
    They are not on combat duty. They are CAN within the specified time, proceed to the database. But the entry into the sea of ​​two more boats is a unmasking sign that the British fleet is preparing to attack the same Russia. Not even a solution, but an investigation into arsenals is already a sign. How many "Tridents" will be hit - 15 or 45 - the question is open. But in any case, Britain will be the loser, because with the second option (3 boats-45 missiles) - this option simply may not remain. No one canceled the preemptive strike, which means that for 2 boats there may be no fate at all to leave the base.

    Next, I repeat again. Trident 2 IN THEORY can carry 14 warheads. But the rocket has never been used with such a BO, even in tests, even in the database. This is the first. In Britain, there were 225 warheads in stock (even without the conditions for the reduction of recent years). Divide this into 48 missiles and find out how many BBs the British Trident 2 can carry in real life.
    One can and should talk about the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion with numbers in their hands in order to know in which radius the shock wave will be dangerous and in which the penetrating radiation. These factors will take place, but the radiation will not be so effective as to hit everyone and everything around, outside a certain radius
  37. Old26
    Old26 4 August 2017 09: 02
    0
    Quote: Tomahawk
    But that’s not even the point. Trident-2 will be launched first in the government and administrative centers, which will lead to anarchy; even the launch of one Trident-2 in the center of Moscow will lead to disorder, there will be massive evacuations, looting, many will be irradiated, many protests, even in the army. After the government will fall at least there will be a civil war for power.


    The launch of one Trident in Moscow will not lead to anything. Around Moscow, there are positioned areas of the missile defense system, which is capable of intercepting the EMNIP of 18 paired targets, that is 36. Given 4 BBs on tridents, it will be necessary to issue at least 10 tridents in Moscow, that is, 20% of the total UK ammunition, so that at least one of them broke through.
    The mass evacuation of Moscow residents - yes, there will certainly be, looting - yes, certainly, irradiated - too, although 4 x 100 ct of charge in a megalopolis is a minuscule. What will not happen is mass protests, both of the population and the army. You just do not know the Russian mentality. people tolerate all these protests of the liberals, because they are more like a show. With the same blow, anyone who comes out to protest will simply be torn apart, because in such cases only 2 categories can protest: either the sick, or the traitors
    What kind of Civil War are you talking about, the struggle for power ??? Do you seriously think that someone will raise the masses, arm them for the struggle for power ??? Well, if you think so, then you are just naive

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Let’s finish the argument about RCC so that you don’t say the maximum launch range of Onyx is 500 km much lower than the destruction range of the AUG air group.
    But the critical mass is not the main condition for the course of the reaction itself, and in general the "critical mass" will never be "critical" in this reaction there will always be a mess.

    You are sure of that. what is 500? Then read an interview with Shoigu after using Onyx in Syria. He clearly named two numbers. How much for sea purposes and how much for land. Further, and who prevents to put the same Onyx on aircraft carriers? Or religion does not allow? so I can upset. Those Indians put "brahmos" on the SU-30 ....
    The range of the AUG defeat is determined not only by the RCC flight range. BUT and a number of other factors. For example, how many ATGM DRLO aircraft are at, how far war ships are located, the radius of patrol of decked aircraft, the outfit of forces used to destroy the AUG. Therefore, to argue that the launch range of the RCC is much less than the range of the AUG defeat is generally incorrect and illiterate

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Well, to be honest, the Information on Wangards is classified.)) That is, everything we are talking about is just speculation, but I think it is more likely that with such a complicated relationship as now, between Britain and the Russian Federation, the number of Trident -2 at "Vengard" at least increased.

    Well, of course, when arguments are uploaded, secrecy comes into play. Your remark reminds me of the statements of the American leadership about the violation by Russia of the INF Treaty.
    USA - "We know that you are breaking the contract"
    Russia - "Give an example of breach of contract by us"
    USA “This information is secret, but we know that you know what we know about your violation of the INF Treaty.”

    So it is here. Information is classified. The fact that the British government officially went to the reduction of the deployed (deployed) charges is by no means a secret. The fact that the British Admiralty plans, if necessary, to strike at a country (not Russia), to demonstrate its determination, is no secret. That for this purpose a "trident" with one warhead will be used in the mine number 2 of the boat (you see, it is even known in which mine such a "Trident" will be) is also not a secret. That only Mine No. 1 is used for testing (even the number is also known) and that this mine does not carry missiles on the database, a missile is loaded into it without warheads, but only with simulators and even before the test is also no secret. And you all say - secretly, secretly.

    And answer the question of how the number of Tridents on British boats can be increased when the BC of these missiles is enough for only three of the four boats. The fourth, what do we cross out? Yes, then there really will be 16 missiles in British boats, but again not with 14 warheads on each. In all other cases, there is not enough ammunition (full) for 4 boats.
    1. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 4 August 2017 14: 51
      0
      Comrade, I want to assure you that if the second and third Wangard go to sea, the Russian Federation will not deliver a preventive strike, however, like Britain, they will swear and put up at the negotiating table.
      About the Civil War and protests. Comrade, I once worked in the Russian Federation, should I not know the mentality of the Russian Federation. Remember 1917. Then the government "fell" and a very sharp power struggle began, which lasted a very long and bloody one. There was an artificial hunger, the availability of bread. And ALWAYS if there is no government, there will be a struggle for power.

      The Su-30 carries only one Onyx, and the Indian Onyx’s range is just 300 km, and it will take off from ground airfields, it’s maximum useful for defense, although the Indians are not authorities in this matter, they all have very very old, they are still very far from the same British, in terms of technology, there are no analogues of the Tomahawk Kyrgyz Republic, in general, they still have to work and work.
      And by the way, the strike range of the same Onyx on ground targets is greater than the Onyx anti-ship missile
  38. Old26
    Old26 4 August 2017 18: 50
    0
    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade, I want to assure you that if the second and third Wangard go to sea, the Russian Federation will not deliver a preventive strike, however, like Britain, they will swear and put up at the negotiating table.

    Can you guarantee this? But I'm not sure. If information passes about the EV fleet entering the sea, especially missile boats - there can only be one answer, against whom it is. In addition, sources of information are enough to make a decision

    Quote: Tomahawk
    About the Civil War and protests. Comrade, I once worked in the Russian Federation, should I not know the mentality of the Russian Federation.

    Of course, you know better after working in Russia at one time than the person who lived there for more than sixty years. You learned the Russian mentality much better than a resident of Russia. This is about the same as having lived for 3 months in the GDR and a month in the MPR, I will talk about the mentality of Germans and the Mongols based on my 90-day and 30-day experience.

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Remember 1917. Then the government "fell" and a very sharp power struggle began, which continued for a very long and bloody period. There was an artificial famine, with bread. And ALWAYS if there is no government, a power struggle will be waged.

    You confuse, as they say in Russia, "a gift of God with an egg." Do not be confused. To compare the situation that has arisen as a result of a long-term bloody war, which is completely unnecessary for the people, with a situation where, for example, a nuclear strike is delivered on Russia ... You absolutely do not know the mentality of the Russians, believing that there will be mass protests and the Civil War. There will be a situation in 1941. The ENEMY attacked the country. And even those who in peacetime were at different political poles will rally. Ball in one of the science fiction novels such a phrase. When a REAL enemy appears - even recent enemies begin to act shoulder to shoulder. You sometimes cite historical events as an example, in particular 1917. And why not give 1941 as an example, when those who were the enemies of Soviet power, Soviet Russia fought against fascist Germany, who attacked the USSR. emigrants, people who fought with the Reds on the sidelines of the Civil War.

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Then the government "fell" and a very sharp struggle for power began, which continued for a very long and bloody period. There was an artificial famine, in the presence of bread

    1917 is not too characteristic as an example. Some lost power, others took. The struggle for power "inside" was not as such. There was an external intervention, an attempt from the outside to change things.
    With regards to the artificial shortage of products. We already survived this in the late 80s, but there was no Civil War.

    Quote: Tomahawk
    The Su-30 carries only one Onyx, and the range of the Indian version of Onyx is just 300 km,

    Do not take me absolutely literally. The example of Brahmos and the SU-30 is an example of how a missile that is launched from land and sea platforms can be launched from air. And what will be the carrier - SU-30, SU-34 or TU-22M4 - the third thing. Like the range of the export version of the rocket received before India signed the agreement on the SRT is different from the version of the rocket for the Russian armed forces

    Quote: Tomahawk
    And by the way, the strike range of the same Onyx on ground targets is greater than the Onyx anti-ship missile

    Not much. Half a hundred kilometers - not critical and explainable
    1. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 4 August 2017 19: 57
      0
      Comrade, if 3 Wangard’s go out into the ocean, this does not mean that they will all shoot, the British can simply remind them of their capabilities, “scare” them, in case of important negotiations, they will do so in order to have reliable support for negotiations.
      Comrade 1941 is not an example. Then there was someone to unite around, there was a single ideology, government, army. In the case of the fall of the Russian government, there will be no single leadership, ideology ... 1917 is a more indicative example. There was a temporary government against the Bolsheviks, then there was a war " red and white, "there was no decisive intervention, the Russians fought with the Russians, and each side had its own ideology, principles, cruelties ....
      Comrade of the su-30, the range is small, as I already said, without aircraft carriers this is a purely defensive weapon, yes it’s a dangerous opponent for the AAG, but it and less than aircraft on an aircraft carrier, it will be very difficult to break the AUG defense. Comrade don’t completely trust the words of the Ministry of Defense, they could have lied, no one had yet created ship-based anti-ship missiles with a range of more than 500 km, and LRASM can be over 900 km, but there are different speeds, another strategy, NATO focuses on stealth, and the Russian Federation on speed.
  39. Old26
    Old26 5 August 2017 00: 20
    0
    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade, if 3 Wangard’s go out into the ocean, this does not mean that they will all shoot, the British can simply remind them of their capabilities, “scare”, in case of important negotiations they will do so in order to have reliable support for negotiations ..

    No, of course the nuclear-powered missile-carrier boat is precisely the very weapon system that can be "scared". NOT an aircraft carrier or AUG, not a few destroyers as a last resort, but certainly missile carriers. The only question is, to whom? Do not tell me what the country should be, just, for the sake of interest, in order to scare it, you need THREE STRATEGIC ROCKET BOATS? Can you answer? Which country should be scared by three boats and two hundred nuclear weapons (with all its nuclear arsenal)? Himself not funny?

    Moreover, in intelligence there is such a term. - DEMASING SIGN. So here. Going out to sea at once three boats with the full nuclear potential of the country is already “Do not scare” someone. This is the initial stage of a nuclear conflict. Now the question is, who will these missiles threaten?
    • America? You understand that this is not funny
    • France maybe? Do you think a NATO ally country can be considered a country that needs to be "scared" by its full nuclear potential?
    • Maybe China? Far from the patrol area. Trident to China "not get it"

    Who else can be scared? Are there any options? I'm afraid not. so if a missile carrier boat went to sea with a full supply of missiles and warheads - there can only be one target. RUSSIA
    So are the rest. Access to the database more than usual number of boats (and especially all) is a sign of war. And no matter whose boats it is: American, Russian, British or French. So your argument about scaring does not stand up to criticism

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade 1941 is not an example. Then there was around whom to unite, there was a single ideology, government, army. .

    The White Guards and the Soviets had a single ideology? But the former White Guards, emigrants also fought against Hitler. And not in the ranks of the Red Army
    Don't like 1941? Take 1812 as an example. And there was no single ideology. But they fought not only and not so much "for faith, the tsar and the fatherland" as against the enemy who went to war against Russia

    Quote: Tomahawk
    In the event of the fall of the Russian government, there will be no single leadership, ideology ... 1917 is a more revealing example. There was a provisional government against the Bolsheviks, then there was a war of “red and white”, there was no decisive intervention, the Russians fought with the Russians, and each side was its own ideology, principles, cruelty ...

    And why will the fall of the Russian government. What will cause it to fall? Popular uprising? Nonsense. The structure, by the way, of the country is such that the country is divided into several Federal Districts. Let's just say this is a regional managerial structure that has in its region sufficient power in the sense of management. Well, the fact that there was a war of white and red, Yes, the Russians fought with the Russians, what's wrong with that. By the way, they fought not only with the Russians, but also with the interventionists. It is not clear what the decisive intervention should have been from your point of view? It is not enough that the North of Russia was occupied by the British and Americans, the Far East by the Japanese, the South by the French (besides all these Russian rulers in the form of Kolchak, Denikin and others), and you should not think that the population was united by ideology. As current, it was not accepted by the entire population of the country, who fought with the invaders.
    There is exactly the same period in American history when southerners fought with northerners

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade in the su-30 range is small, as I said.

    Of course a little. The combat radius of 1500 km against 865-950 km at the F-35B. Such a small combat radius. The SU-30 will be able to reach Britain and release the same Onyx from a distance of 300 km. In total, the combat radius + firing range of the RCC for the British F-35 is approximately 1800 km, for our SU-30 - 2100 km.

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade, do not completely trust the words of the Ministry of Defense, they could have lied, no one had yet created ship-based anti-ship missiles with a range of more than 500 km.

    And who to believe? You? Excuse me the blizzard you carry? Or Wikipedia?
    As for the fact that no one created ship-based anti-ship missiles with a range of over 500 km - Andrei from Chelyabinsk I told you already, I think too - LEARN MATCH. Such a Granite rocket, is it telling you something? But her firing range is under 700-800 km.

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Yes, LRASM can run for 900 km, but there are different speeds, another strategy, NATO focuses on stealth, and the Russian Federation on speed.

    Yeah, the strategy is different. We have speed, you have stealth. Incidentally, cruise missiles of the 100th series are made using stealth technology. With her TTX turn it into RCC - yes no problems
    1. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 5 August 2017 08: 28
      0
      Comrade, if Britain takes its 3 Wangards to the ocean, the Russian Federation will put its strategic nuclear forces and missile defense on alert, tested in the Caribbean crisis.
      Comrade HISTORY ALWAYS SHOWS THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T BECOME AN ACUTE FIGHT FOR AUTHORITY, there isn’t even a solidarity of the people, each FD can not obey and not help the other, ALWAYS FOR NORMAL FUNCTIONING, GENEW will not nominate your candidate for president (by the way, where and how are you going to organize the elections?), then naturally there will be accusations of falsification And so on, there will be military juntas, there will be a Civil War. Take another option - during the hostilities the state will take the dictator, which will also cause a lot of discontent, and during the aftermath of hostilities he may not want to give up, by the way, let’s say that many still in wartime do not want to obey him. 1941 and 1812 is not an example, then there was a UNITED LEADERING ARMY AND COUNTRY, after the strike of Trident-2 it will not be, and there will be what I described above.
      1. marder7
        marder7 5 August 2017 11: 45
        0
        after hitting you will not become a trident! the system "Perimeter" (it is also a "dead hand") has not gone away. soldier nuclear explosion + lack of communication with the command center = retaliation strike by the RVSN ALL ARSENAL on ... NATO. 1700 warheads with a capacity of 550 kt to 3 mt. what is left of you?
        1. Tomahawk
          Tomahawk 5 August 2017 14: 16
          0
          And what remains of you?
          1. marder7
            marder7 5 August 2017 18: 40
            0
            you painted us a scenario with the destruction of our government, I tell you what will follow - "There was a UNITED LEADERING ARMY AND COUNTRY, after the strike of Trident-2 it will not, and there will be what I described above." are these your words? and I explain what will happen IMMEDIATELY AFTER an impact. and then nuclear winter comes.
    2. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 5 August 2017 08: 38
      0
      Comrade your Wikipedia tells me that the range of the P-70 ranges from 550 to 625 km according to different data. Have you not overestimated anything there? For me it’s not news that normal aviation always surpasses ship's in TTX, but normal aviation at least needs the aerodrome and logistics to it, the aircraft carrier does not have such a problem, it is more universal, normal aviation will not fly out of the radius of its operation relative to the airfield, and the aircraft carrier, though not quickly, will deliver you an air group to almost any part of the world.
  40. Old26
    Old26 5 August 2017 14: 19
    0
    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade your Wikipedia tells me that the range of the P-70 is on a combined path, according to various sources, from 550 to 625 km. Have you overestimated anything there? .

    But other than on Wikipedia, look at other resources is not given? But even in any case, Wikipedia crosses out your assertion that no one has ever created naval anti-ship missiles with a range of over 500 km. Was that your statement? In addition to the low-altitude and combined, there is also a high-altitude flight profile

    Quote: Tomahawk
    It’s not news to me that normal aviation always surpasses the ship in terms of performance characteristics, but normal aviation at least needs an aerodrome and logistics for it, the aircraft carrier does not have such a problem, it is more universal, normal aviation will not fly out of range with respect to the airfield, but the aircraft carrier although it’s not quick, it will deliver you an air group to almost any part of the world.

    just let's not start turning out. You wrote. that in comparison with the British AUG aircraft, the SU-30 has less range (although in such cases it’s not about range, but about the combat radius). I showed you on the numbers that no less, but almost two more

    Yes, land aviation is tied to an aerodrome and logistics. To increase the range will require tankers. But what, for an aircraft carrier, is this not relevant? Does an aircraft carrier have a breakthrough in aviation fuel and ammunition and can it fly for months and conduct combat operations? Yes, he will deliver the air group exclusively to the place that he can reach at one gas station. The simplest example. The Queen Elizabeth has a range of 10000 nautical miles or roughly 19000 km. To the same Falkland Islands about 14500 km. This means that the aircraft carrier will reach the islands. but to go back - alas. Logistics for the fleet means much more than for land aviation. It will be necessary to replenish stocks of fuel, water, food, ammunition, and not only for an aircraft carrier, but also for escort ships. so that "almost anywhere in the world" the aircraft carrier will not deliver its air group. Yes, as a tool it is more flexible than land aviation. But only

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade, if Britain withdraws its 3 Wengards to the ocean, the Russian Federation will bring its strategic nuclear forces and missile defense to combat readiness, verified in the Caribbean crisis ..

    Do not confuse the events of the crisis. with modernity. Then, days could have elapsed between the release of the boats (all at sea) and the outbreak of war, since it was necessary to get to the position. And the opposite side to detect that all boats left the base. Now it is much easier. And with a high degree of probability, if all the boats leave the base, this means that not only will the strategic nuclear forces be alerted, but also a preventive strike is possible. Of course, the basis for a decision will be not only the exit of boats from the base. but also an analysis of a number of factors


    Quote: Tomahawk
    COMMAND HISTORY ALWAYS SHOWS THAT IF Suddenly DOESN’T BECOME A GOVERNMENT, A STRICT FIGHT FOR AUTHORITY WILL BE WENT.

    And you say that you worked in Russia and you know the Russian mentality well? have you still not understood that comparing, for example, 1917, and the situation that you hypothetically described is NOT CORRECT. The struggle for power in the conditions of anarchy in the country, when the country, although it was at war, was by no means in the depths of its territory and the situation when the country was attacked. It will not just be no government. With a certain degree of probability, it can be destroyed. But this is not a reason for the struggle for power and the start of the Civil War. Maybe when the war ends, such situations of struggle for power may arise, but not during the war. You do not know Russian. We are very, very unpredictable. Sometimes we can respond to your trick with such nonsense that your analysts will go crazy trying to predict such a development option.


    Quote: Tomahawk
    here, it’s not even a matter of the unity of the people, each FD may not obey and help the other.

    Well, do not count us as fools. Each federal district is a kind of duplicate management hub, in addition to the center.

    Quote: Tomahawk
    ALWAYS FOR THE NORMAL FUNCTIONING OF THE STATE A HEAD IS NEEDED, which will not happen, each FD will put forward its own candidate for president (by the way, where and how are you going to arrange the elections?),.

    We, as well as you, have a peculiar hierarchy of persons who can consistently take the post of head of state, in case of his death. So do not assume that in Russia everything is so dense, and the death of the president will lead to a division of power and the Civil War.
    just as it’s not worth considering us absolutely stupid that we will immediately begin to prepare for the elections. It is you who can play democracy, arranging elections in this case. even if the entire elite, hierarchically stated in the constitution, as the successors of the head of state are knocked out, the leaders of the federal district, who for the most part are former generals, can take power. In the end, the military can take power, and in such an emergency, they simply take power into their own hands, installing, call it what you like, dictatorship, junta or whatever. And don’t worry. There will be no protests and rallies. Is it possible for them to get a racket like Navalny, Sobchak, Akhidzhakova, etc. We, unlike you, are dark people, we are not accustomed to democracies, but we know and know how to rally around a leader ..... so do not count on a color revolution. First, we’ll break it down, it won’t seem a little, and then we will see what and how. Who to choose or whom to leave

    Quote: Tomahawk
    then naturally there will be accusations of falsification And so on, there will be military juntas, there will be a Civil War.

    Well, you definitely don’t know the mentality of a Russian person if you think that there will be accusations of election fraud and so on, after the other side has attacked you with nuclear missiles. No offense, but sometimes it seems to me that Zadornov is not far from the truth

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Let's take another option — during the hostilities, the dictator will take over the state, which will also cause a lot of discontent, and during the aftermath of the hostilities he may not want to give up, by the way, say that many people still do not want to obey him in wartime ..

    It can easily be a dictator. about the discontent during the dictatorship .... You definitely do not know Russian history, namely what was done with the discontented during the dictatorship. They will be unhappy only if "he", instead of breaking the country down, goes to the aggressor along the line of searching for "universal values." As for disobedience during the dictatorship, he also smiled. especially in wartime ....

    Quote: Tomahawk
    after the strike of Trident-2 it will not be, and there will be what I described above.

    After being hit by the British Tridents. After all, the whole fuss is going on around this? So, for starters, Britain will have to decide what to do. Commit suicide in order to get scorched islands as a result, or what?
    I already wrote that Russia has a missile defense system in Moscow. How much she can intercept - also wrote. It turns out that in order to strike, and in such a way that guaranteed to break through to Moscow at least ONE Trident-2, the British will need to spend at least 20% of their arsenal. And even then, without a guarantee of the destruction of anything .. Moscow has an approximate size of 100 km to 40 km in the widest part. Agree that 4 charges of 100 kt per such area is a mosquito bite. Even if such nodes as the Kremlin, FSB buildings, the Ministry of Defense are destroyed, this does not mean that the entire leadership of the country will be destroyed. True, I can’t even imagine what will happen to Britain. You can evenly distribute the remaining missiles, as you wrote between cities with a population of 500 thousand or more. True, the entire military-industrial complex is by no means concentrated there.
    That is, a nuclear war to the meddle by Britain and Russia is an act of suicide of Britain in a particularly sophisticated form
    1. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 5 August 2017 20: 29
      0
      Comrade I hope you play a joke about the fervent))) he says "stupid" in relation to the Country (USA) in which:
      The most powerful army on the planet
      1/2 of the world work for
      Which has military bases around the world
      Armaments of which are in 2/3 of the world
      (Britain) which despite its small territory
      1) the third most powerful fleet on the planet (China and India do not count, there is a huge technological gap between them and Britain)
      2) the trickiest politicians in the world
      3) whose economy, with their territory, is one of the strongest in the world
      PS I would be so stupid)
    2. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 5 August 2017 20: 43
      0
      About the Caribbean crisis. There, everything was known to everyone without intelligence, the world was separated from the catastrophe by one button ..... The USA, with their full advantage, did not dare to attack the USSR, which had nuclear weapons, there was nothing to hide, it would also be here, the British would simply deduce how then their carriers of nuclear weapons, the Russian Federation, too, and neither side will fire.
      Comrade, do not be offended, but after using nuclear weapons, you will not be as bold as in the comments now.
      There can be many dictators, each high-ranking military officer wants to take all the power for himself, which will lead to a war between the two sides, it’s not even a matter of mentality (although it can be easily understood even by laws, for example, Germany), but simply of human nature, Kerensky the masses at first supported it, but then it didn’t grow together, he did not become the new king-priest, and of course the people left him and joined the Bolsheviks. If you’d like to know that after the use of Trident-2 there will naturally be an intervention from NATO and China at least. Khrushev himself said that even the danger of losing two large cities would force the United States to abandon the attack on the USSR.
    3. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 5 August 2017 20: 53
      0
      About AUG. Comrade, you can’t imagine how many times logistics for an airport is more complicated than logistics for AUGs. For the British, French, and the USA, AUG logistics has been practiced for decades, the Russian Federation for objective reasons will be much more complicated, as I already said, the main offensive force of the Russian Navy is the submarine, there’s no need to argue, even I admit, but to frighten NATO “Admiral Kuznetsov” no need, "Peter the Great" will be effective as part of the "mosquito fleet", but no more during the war with NATO.
      Comrade, yes, I’ve made a mistake, but this doesn’t change anything in the coordinate system, aviation with AUGs will still be longer-range than ship-based anti-ship missiles.
  41. Old26
    Old26 5 August 2017 22: 45
    0
    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade I hope you play a joke about the fervent))) he says "stupid" in relation to the Country (USA) in which:
    The most powerful army on the planet
    1/2 of the world work for
    Which has military bases around the world
    Armaments of which are in 2/3 of the world
    (Britain) which despite its small territory
    1) the third most powerful fleet on the planet (China and India do not count, there is a huge technological gap between them and Britain)
    2) the trickiest politicians in the world
    3) whose economy, with their territory, is one of the strongest in the world
    PS I would be so stupid)

    And what, with all this, can not be manifested, sorry, stupidity? especially when the American begins to talk about the Russian mentality, having worked there for a short time ... Well, I'm sorry if I offended, but some of your statements. constant statements of the same gives such a view.

    Quote: Tomahawk
    About the Caribbean crisis. There, everything was known to everyone without intelligence, the world was separated from the catastrophe by one button ..... The USA, with their full advantage, did not dare to attack the USSR, which had nuclear weapons, there was nothing to hide, it would also be here, the British would simply deduce how then their carriers of nuclear weapons, the Russian Federation, too, and neither side will fire.

    America could well push the button. The world was lucky that there were people who took the trouble to try to solve the problem. And then it was a matter of technology and diplomats.
    Now is not 62 years old. Procrastination can be fatal and if the sum of the factors is in favor of Britain preparing for the attack, there will be a preventive strike

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade, do not be offended, but after using nuclear weapons, you will not be as bold as in the comments now. .

    Sure? Do I need to paint the situation with Britain’s nuclear weapons for the tenth time? Repeat? I am not proud. I can repeat it. Britain has 3 boats with 48 missiles on board. The approximate amount of BG on one rocket is FOUR.
    The Moscow missile defense system is capable of intercepting 18 paired targets. Total 36 goals. In total, 36 goals mean NINE Trident-2 missiles. So what remains with Britain? 39 missiles with approximately 160 warheads.
    How much are you willing to spend on the destruction of Moscow? Did the Americans at one time plan to hit 7-8 megaton-class charges with an area of ​​Moscow in those years three times = four times less than now? And how much after that will remain for other purposes in the country, so that, as you say, they are "not so bold." as in the comments? The victims will be huge. But the country will not die. And the potential will not decrease significantly. For information, the Americans, when planning attacks on our mines, planned 2 heads of 100 ct.

    Quote: Tomahawk
    There can be many dictators, each senior military officer wants to take all the power for himself, which will lead to a war between the two sides, it’s not even a matter of mentality (although it can be easily understood even by the laws, for example, Germany), but simply of human nature.

    There are not many dictators. The division commander will not apply for the post of dictator, if the post of chief commander of the ground forces claims for this position

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Even if you would like to know that after the use of Trident-2 there will be natural intervention, from NATO and China at least. Khrushev himself said that even the danger of losing two large

    Already NATO and China signed? Well then, what are you talking about the impossibility of a preventive strike by Russia on Britain? After applying the Trident, there will be only one. The complete destruction of Britain.
    In order for NATO to be able to do something against Russia, in particular aggression against Russia, NATO should not just get a command, but pull troops to the borders of Russia, a huge amount of fuel, ammunition. You yourself like to talk about logistics. Do you really think that Russian intelligence will prospit all these activities, which will last several weeks, at least?
    The same is with China, if you are already betting on it. What will happen if Chinese troops cross the Russian border?

    Quote: Tomahawk
    About AUG. Comrade, you can’t imagine how many times logistics for an airport is more complicated than logistics for AUGs. .

    You will be surprised, but imagine.

    Quote: Tomahawk
    The British, French, and the USA have been working on AUG logistics for decades,.

    I do not argue. But with all this, to carry out logistic operations 10000 miles from the base is still not a very simple matter. The fuel supply only on the aircraft carrier is about 9000 tons. Plus escort ships. Have to drag a tanker at least

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade, yes, I’ve made a mistake, but this doesn’t change anything in the coordinate system, aviation with AUGs will still be longer-range than ship-based anti-ship missiles.

    Now you are introducing a new intro. That was said about anti-ship missiles on planes, our SU-30 and deck F-35, now ship's anti-ship missiles. Maybe still stop at something. And then change the "testimony" in the course
    1. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 6 August 2017 01: 09
      0
      Comrade, in principle, there are no insoluble conflicts, the same Caribbean crisis - there was a conflict between NATO and the USSR, but they decided it, "completely press the button" can either side, but the question is, will it press? Is it worth it to lose Moscow because of some Falkland Islands? Even the complete destruction of Britain will not solve all the problems, both internal and external, but only exacerbate them. In Moscow, a good half, if not more universities, government organizations, residents, and so on, can you imagine how the people will rise? Someone there had relatives, friends .... But the government decided to deliver a preventive strike, although you could try to come to an agreement. Do you think the people will be very pleased with the war?
      I’ve been to Germany, of course, over time, but I determined their mentality. Russians are always better at buying "made in Germany" than "made in Russia", this already speaks of the mentality.
      The Russians don’t throw out the garbage “separately”, the German will throw it away, this already speaks of the state’s priorities in financial matters. You can only continue.
      Comrade: the head of the Black Sea Fleet, the north, the chiefs of the Military District, and so on, everyone will fight, and everyone will have their own army, then that the other "older in rank" can be corrected, criticized, "give a vote of no confidence", conquered by oratory, promise that then ... all this has already been successfully used in the struggle for power. THE HISTORY HASN'T KNOWN THE CASES WHEN THE EXTERNAL DISAPPEARANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT WASN'T FIGHT FOR AUTHORITY. Even after the collapse of the USSR (although in principle the government was) everything did not go smoothly, there were gangs, the declaration of independence of Chechnya, the semi-independence of certain federal districts, in general, a "mess" in the state from which the Russian Federation could still not get out. And this is ONLY during the collapse of the USSR. And if there was the same Trident-2 attack on the USSR, many, very many believed in ideals of the USSR ...
      1. Operator
        Operator 6 August 2017 12: 28
        0
        Quote: Tomahawk
        HISTORY DIDN'T KNOW CASES THAT UNDER A SUDDEN DISAPPEARANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE FIGHT FOR POWER

        Quite right, comrade, there will be a power struggle, but only after the launch of Russian intercontinental missiles against targets on the US national territory.

        After that, the struggle for power will be on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
    2. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 6 August 2017 01: 16
      0
      , and what is the path to the power of the proletariat in Britain, world unity, peace?
      Comrade, I didn’t introduce any new variables, I just argued that the AUG is currently vulnerable on the high seas (if you do not take nuclear weapons), only submarines and DAs. This is a more versatile and long-range weapon than the same Su-30s, Granit, "Onyx"...
  42. Old26
    Old26 6 August 2017 12: 03
    0
    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade, in principle, there are no insoluble conflicts, the same Caribbean crisis - there was a conflict between NATO and the USSR.

    How interesting was NATO's side in the Caribbean crisis? The fact that American missile systems were located on their territory? So no one asked them. They simply proposed a resolution according to which the complexes were located. And they simply could not refuse it. In the same way, we can say that the Caribbean crisis was a conflict between NATO and ATS countries. But he was then Soviet-American and no other

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Is it worth it to lose Moscow because of some Falkland Islands? .

    Now have the Falklands become an apple of contention between Russia and Britain? Something I more and more cease to understand you. It started with one, then jump to another, now to the Falklands. What will be in response to my posts tomorrow?

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Even the complete destruction of Britain will not solve all the problems, both internal and external, but only exacerbate them. In Moscow, a good half, if not more universities, government organizations, residents, and so on, can you imagine how the people will rise? Someone there had relatives, friends .... But the government decided to deliver a preventive strike, although you could try to come to an agreement. Do you think the people will be very pleased with the war? ..

    Do you know the situation in Russia so well that you say that in Moscow there are a good half, if not more, universities? And the rest of Russia - so, backyard, no one is studying anywhere, because in Moscow there is a large part of the country's universities. Himself not funny ???
    So what, what are the officials there, government organizations (by the way, not only in Moscow, but also in St. Petersburg. Will the people rise after, say, after the hypothetical destruction of Moscow? It rises. But only in order to "break" the aggressor, and not in order to protest. How would you say softer. In all of Russia is very Ambiguous attitude to Moscow and its inhabitants. There are many reasons for this. Yes, someone has relatives there, friends. All this will cause anger. directed outward towards the aggressor. And the government, if it intends to deliver a preemptive strike, we can definitely say that such a decision will be proactive. So it will be known for sure that nuclear forces. Britain will be ready to strike at my country. No normal people can be satisfied with the war. But our stories are stories of continuous wars when they tried to destroy us. And most often, such wars did not end in favor of the one who undertook them

    Quote: Tomahawk
    I’ve been to Germany, of course, over time, but I determined their mentality. Russians are always better at buying "made in Germany" than "made in Russia", this already speaks of the mentality ..

    This does not speak of mentality, but of the pragmatism of Russians. We live far less richly than some others. And therefore, when buying a particular product, we consider it according to the criterion of "cost-effectiveness". The Germans showed themselves very well in terms of quality. And if there is a choice to take, for example, a car, then our people look not only at the label where it was made, but also at the quality and price. If in this regard the product suits, then out of the mass of options, for example, I repeat the car, a person can choose “Opel”, for example, rather than “Renault”, “Chevrolet” or a Japanese-Chinese there.
    Yes, many of our consumer goods do not reach Western standards. Nobody argues with that. And if there is an option to choose domestic or Western products - I choose not according to the principle of patriotism (they say I will buy only everything Russian), but from pragmatic reasons. This is pragmatism, and not the mentality of taking everything foreign.
    .
    Quote: Tomahawk
    The Russians don’t throw out the garbage “separately”, the German will throw it away, this already speaks of the state’s priorities in financial matters. You can still continue ..

    Want to talk about "junk issues." I don’t see what is the priority in financial matters. But I will say that in some ways you are right. Indeed, for a long time we did not throw garbage "separately." Now there are changes in this. Personally, in my yard, in addition to "ordinary" garbage containers, there are containers for plastic bottles. As I heard, questions about the appearance of containers for tin containers (cans) seem to be being resolved. And the reason here is not the “denseness” of Russians and their mentality. The question is different, that often there was no capacity for processing such products. And to solve such issues it was necessary within, if not the city specifically, then within the subject. Last year, a plastic processing workshop was launched in our city. A number of smelters have been opened in the neighboring town. So here it’s not only the mentality that matters, but sometimes the possibilities

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade: the head of the Black Sea Fleet, the north, the chiefs of the Military District, and so on, everyone will fight, and everyone will have their own army, then that the other "older in rank" can be corrected, criticized, "give a vote of no confidence", conquered by oratory, promise that then ... all this has already been successfully used in the struggle for power ..
    .
    You forget only one thing. In Russia, fortunately in certain cases, there is simply no democracy, especially in the army. There is a very tough one-man management. In the event of an attack of the same Moscow, no one will hold rallies, meetings, decide whether to obey a superior or send him three letters. There will simply be no oratory, a vote of no confidence and other democratic husk. There will be a call on ZAS from orders to open an envelope with a specific number or a certain color. Run and report. The Russian military organism is different from the western and in particular the American one. The Russian soldier will not go on strike and refuse to go into battle because there will be “shrapnel” instead of buckwheat for breakfast. And about the fact that some kind of ice cream was not brought for breakfast

    Quote: Tomahawk
    . THE HISTORY DIDN'T KNOW THE CASES THAT WHEN THE EXTERNAL DISAPPEARANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT WASN’T THE FIGHT FOR AUTHORITY ...

    Do not confuse the “disappearance of the government” as a result of the blow of the other side and the struggle for power during the period of political cataclysms
  43. Old26
    Old26 6 August 2017 12: 03
    0
    Quote: Tomahawk
    Even after the collapse of the USSR (although in principle the government was) everything did not go smoothly; there were gangs, the proclamation of independence of Chechnya, the semi-independence of some federal districts, in general, a "mess" in a state from which the Russian Federation could still not get out. And this is only during the collapse of the USSR .And if there was that same Trident-2 attack on the USSR, many, very many believed in the ideals of the USSR ...

    You are confusing causes and effects. The reason for the "mess" was not the presence or absence of government as a result of the collapse of the USSR. The reason was Yeltsin’s destructive, destructive activity in the last years of the USSR’s existence, when he called for “taking as much sovereignty as you can take away,” thereby giving the green light to the collapse of the country from the inside. Even with such a weak president as Gorbachev there was no such treason. They appeared closer to 1990 as a result of the activities of Yeltsin. Yes, there were gangs, there was Chechnya, there was a semi-independence of some national republics as part of the Russian Federation (and not FD). BUT, the country's margin of safety was so great that even 10 years of the reign of Yeltsin and his "associates", who took the visor to any Western proposals, could not lead to the collapse of Russia. But these are the country's internal disasters. External aggression - an attack by the Trident would lead to cohesion, and not to "confusion and reeling." It was external aggression that always united the people, regardless of ideology. There is an enemy - he must be destroyed. And everything else is then .....

    Quote: Tomahawk
    Comrade, I didn’t introduce any new variables, I just argued that the AUG is currently vulnerable on the high seas (if you do not take nuclear weapons), only submarines and DAs. This is a more versatile and long-range weapon than the same Su-30s, Granit, "Onyx"...

    Even if we do not take nuclear weapons, but imagine a hypothetical war between Britain and Russia, then its AUG in the amount of one will be vulnerable. And this is no more versatile and long-range weapon than ground aviation. Yes, I agree that in some situations the AUG will be more universal than the same ground forces. But only if the object of impact is outside the combat radius of the aircraft + anti-ship missiles launched from them. In all other cases, it can be more universal, but by no means long-range. Taking the same AUG currently existing in Britain. The combat radius of aircraft is less than 1000 km. This is a lot (1/3 less than the same combat radius of the SU-30. Even with the adoption of the American (even if it will not be anti-ship missiles, but a missile defense system for coastal operations with a range of 900 km, this will not solve the problem. " The “arm” of carrier-based aviation (combat radius + missile range) will be less than that of the SU-30. Even if these planes try to attack the same Kuznetsov-Peter pair, nothing will come of them. The range of the cruiser’s air defense systems is quite large. The speed of American anti-ship missiles is subsonic. Moreover, to get target designation, the planes will have to get close enough to the “pair.” The missiles will be intercepted even when approaching. And no one can say who will win in this “brawl." escort or the same AUG. as a part of even if not a full-fledged aircraft carrier, but with a full-fledged cruiser
    1. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 7 August 2017 00: 46
      0
      Comrade, the British are not suicides, and in the Russian Federation they understand this perfectly (except for Zadorny))) the dialogue, of course I will say it is exaggerated, but still the dialogue will be something like this:

      (Situation: Britain wants to put the remaining 2 Vengards into the sea)
      RF - if you bring your 2 Wangard to the ocean, we will open a preemptive strike
      Britain is our Navy, do what we want
      (The Russian Federation understands that Britain is not suicide and will not strike, Britain also understands that the Russian Federation will not open a preemptive strike, because the Russian Federation understands that they are not suicides and the British will not launch Trident-2, and that the Russian Federation does not want to lose at least the capital , and plunge the country is unclear what. Britain brings the rest of the "Wangard" into the ocean)
      -RF declares that 3 Vengards do not pose a threat to the state, but all the same, our missile defense and strategic nuclear forces systems are brought into full use.
      (the situation is decided by diplomats, and everyone disagrees peacefully)
      END
    2. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 7 August 2017 00: 49
      0
      Comrade, I am changing for the Falkland Islands, I had in mind the figurative meaning, that is, the "apple of discord," I have always had problems with this in Russian. hi
    3. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 7 August 2017 01: 04
      0
      Comrade, the war with Britain will not end even before it begins, there’s nothing even to unite the people, they just won’t have time. Next, internal affairs will go. And what will happen - a lot of contention and problems that will lead to the Civil War: someone will be for the restoration of the federation, someone for the establishment of a dictatorship, someone for the establishment of a dictatorship of a different person, and so on ... And radiation after the impact will remain to take with them even more lives. In 1941 and 1812, people rallied during the already existing political system and when there were already leading personalities, near whom people rallied. Needless to say, different people have different pretenders for the role of the very person who will lead him people. And they will fight for it, the same beginning of the XNUMXth century for Russia, many went after Kerensky, Lenin, Kolchak, Makhno .... and in each of these people many people saw that same leader, dictator.
    4. Tomahawk
      Tomahawk 7 August 2017 01: 39
      0
      Speaking of Moscow.Moscow is the cultural, economic, political, scientific center of the Russian Federation. The salary of a janitor in Moscow is more than that of a skilled worker, somewhere in the Urals. Most of the design bureaus are located in Moscow and so on. Whatever the provinces say, but almost everyone who has received at least some kind of education goes to Moscow. And how much invested in the standard of living in Moscow? I had to visit some cities of Moscow oblast, I still haven’t said anything, I haven’t remembered anything from the names, but I hope you will understand me. And this is just the capital’s area! look after, "I had to go there, but there are much more groomed areas. So, with the loss of Moscow, the Russian Federation will lose: most of the country's scientific potential, lose a huge number of people, huge budget investments, government ..... it will not clear the country what it is.

      Speaking of the mentality. Comrade just don’t tell me that a Country with a second army on the planet doesn’t have the opportunity to set up plastic processing plants all over the country. Comrade from the same Germans, all the cities in the picture, they like, take care of their They protect their country and the environment, in the Russian Federation this is not the case yet. German laws are very strict. For the slightest violation (which the Russian Federation simply will not pay attention to) you will receive a very large fine, after which you will no longer want to violate this law. This is a question of organization .Germans themselves are a very organized people, and they do everything "in good faith", which is why a Russian, even with the same price and quality of two goods (German and Russian) will always choose German.