Military Review

Washington is calling to the service of "Dwarfs": The Pentagon decided to build its "Topol" and "Yarsy"

28
By the end of the year, a ready document, the Nuclear Posture Review, should be placed on the president’s table. It should identify the development paths of the strategic nuclear forces and the programs that could make them dominant in the world.


Washington is calling to the service of "Dwarfs": The Pentagon decided to build its "Topol" and "Yarsy"


Following Moscow and Beijing, Washington is ready to strengthen its nuclear potential by creating new types of weapons - strategic mobile missile systems. The idea originated in 1991 year. But today again attracts American experts and military. Justification of the need to create such systems is contained in the report of one of the leading American universities - Johns Hopkins University.

Read fully on the site "Star": Washington is calling to the service of "Dwarfs": The Pentagon decided to build its "Topol" and "Yarsy"
28 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. Knowing
    Knowing 9 September 2017 06: 41
    +1
    "Following Moscow and Beijing, Washington is ready to strengthen its nuclear potential by creating new types of weapons - strategic mobile missile systems. The idea came back in 1991."- And they also say that “the Russians harness for a long time” ... But what’s encouraging, “the Russians harness for a long time, but FAST go,” unlike the Americans, who, apart from inflating their cheeks, can’t do anything else ...
    1. AID.S
      AID.S 9 September 2017 08: 02
      +4
      Read the full article. This is about inflation.
      1. umah
        umah 13 September 2017 12: 00
        +1
        During the Cold War, the SGA tried to create mobile complexes, but they did not succeed. Given that at that time they were at the peak of technological power. I doubt very much that they will succeed now
    2. sania5791
      sania5791 9 September 2017 11: 29
      +2
      Inflating the cheeks, ruined the USSR.
      Are you using Windows or OS right now, maybe an android like me? So where did all this come from, or where was the first helicopter or television built, well, or stealth technologies from where in this world from the Garden Ring or MKAD?
      1. TOR2
        TOR2 9 September 2017 14: 33
        +9
        Quote: sania5791
        Well, or stealth technology from where in this world from the Garden Ring or the Moscow Ring Road?

        The basis of stealth technologies are the research and calculations of Professor Ufimtsev. Books on this subject were published in the USSR back in the 60s.
        The basis of the first electronic television receiver was the development of the Russian physicist Boris Rosing. In 1907, he inserted a cathode ray tube into the receiving apparatus and received a static picture of geometric figures, which was continued by another Russian engineer, Vladimir Zvorykin. After the revolutionary events, he left for America, and in 1923 he patented a unique invention - television, fully functioning using electronic technology.
        This is for you to reference.
        1. raw174
          raw174 14 September 2017 07: 49
          +1
          Quote: TOR2
          The basis of stealth technologies are the research and calculations of Professor Ufimtsev. Books on this subject were published in the USSR back in the 60s.
          The basis of the first electronic television receiver was the development of the Russian physicist Boris Rosing. In 1907, he inserted a cathode ray tube into the receiving apparatus and received a static picture of geometric figures, which was continued by another Russian engineer, Vladimir Zvorykin. After the revolutionary events, he left for America, and in 1923 he patented a unique invention - television, fully functioning using electronic technology.

          Dear, this is all clear, but sania5791 said everything correctly. It is not so important where the origins were and who the author is, the main thing is where they patented and established production, especially since the creators who left for overseas did not position themselves as Russian inventors. One can be proud that Sikorsky is Russian, but he is primarily an American inventor ...
      2. Berkut24
        Berkut24 9 September 2017 14: 36
        +2
        By the way, the Americans made their first "stealth plane" - F117 based on the work of Soviet scientists who were in the open press ...
        According to Lokhidov engineer A. Brown, the success of his company was greatly facilitated by the use of Soviet technical literature and, above all, the theoretical works of P. Ufimtsev, an employee of the Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics of the USSR Academy of Sciences. An article by this physicist on calculation methods for determining EPR, published in 1962 in a small-run narrow departmental journal, was translated into English in 1971 and was used by Lockheed to develop the Echo program for calculating the EPR of bodies of various configurations. As the Americans themselves write, this allowed a 30-40% reduction in the cost of developing the XST, and later the F-117.
      3. Kibalchish
        Kibalchish 13 September 2017 18: 41
        0
        Inflating the cheeks, ruined the USSR.


        The Soviet Union collapsed leadership-on their own! Of course, not without the help of the United States, but they did not use military force. And speaking of a helicopter, a TV and stealth technology, all this was invented by Russian scientists.
  2. NEXUS
    NEXUS 9 September 2017 09: 13
    +4
    I do not think that mobile complexes for the USA are a vital necessity. Question-Against whom? Against the Russian Federation and China? So since ancient times, the US has been the carrier of strategic nuclear forces against us and the Chinese. I believe that if in the 91st year they did not create such a complex, then they will not create it now, since there is essentially no need for the USA in it.
    1. Grach-25sm
      Grach-25sm 10 September 2017 08: 31
      0
      A new round washed down the dough in the USA! That's all.
  3. aiw
    aiw 9 September 2017 10: 43
    +3
    Mdya ... I don’t presume to judge the military-political aspects associated with mobile missile systems, but on the technical side the author in some places carries fierce nonsense.

    The "cosmic eye" is not able to detect a target in the so-called nadir hole.
    The so-called author? No one calls it that the author wanted to say that? What does a satellite not see through the Earth through?

    At the same time, it is possible to calculate the orbits of spacecraft and plot the movement routes of launchers in such a way that they are constantly in blind areas for the enemy.
    These zones move at a speed of 7.8 km / s, and as a whole the group provides an overview all territories at intervals of hours. It is interesting how the mobile complex will dodge satellite observation - Zircon is resting ...

    The target becomes invisible even if its radial speed is less than the minimum detected by the radar. At the same time, the satellite believes that the target is standing, induces anti-missiles at it, but in fact the mobile launcher slowly but surely leaves the aiming point.

    Radial speed in this context is how? Is the target moving vertically? The rest of the thought is so enchanting that I can’t even comment on it ...

    If the car is this text, Dmitry Litovkin (according to Google journalist and military expert fool ), so incompetent in technical matters, it becomes not very clear how he can be trusted in everything else ...
  4. Old26
    Old26 9 September 2017 10: 51
    +3
    The article referred to in the note is only worthy of being placed in only one place ... In the toilet ...
    Just look at the author’s passages:
    The MGM-134A Midgetman was the victim of a Russian-US strategic offensive arms reduction agreement START-1. The system was a small-sized intercontinental solid propellant ballistic missile of a mine, wheeled (tracked) or railway-based.

    "Dwarf" has never been created in the version of the mine and especially the railway. Then the author mixed everything together. And the options for basing MX and basing "Dwarf"

    Its appearance was to be a response to the deployment of the USSR mobile strategic systems RT-23 Molodets (railway) and RT-2PM Topol.

    Actually, "Well done" is not here. "Dwarf" was generally a new word. 18-ton intercontinental missile, Our answer to it would be to "Courier"

    The Americans did not create a railway option. Mobile - based on a truck tractor with a semitrailer in which the rocket was located - went through a test cycle and, in principle, was ready for adoption. But it did not work out. During the exchange, the “Dwarf" was allowed under the knife. Moscow eventually said goodbye to Pioneer and Well done.

    The Americans created the railway version of the MX base, but for a number of reasons, including and did not begin to deploy the financial plan. As they did not begin to deploy other MX-based options, in particular the Track system and the trench system.
    And in the course of the mutual exchange, not “Pioneer” and “Well done” were taken under the knife, but “Courier”. “Pioneer” was put under the knife back in 1987, “Well done” under the START-2 agreement of 1993 was to be reduced by 2003. So the author’s knowledge is whipping from all the cracks.

    Quote: NEXUS
    I do not think that mobile complexes for the USA are a vital necessity. Question-Against whom? Against the Russian Federation and China? So since ancient times, the US has been the carrier of strategic nuclear forces against us and the Chinese. I believe that if in the 91st year they did not create such a complex, then they will not create it now, since there is essentially no need for the USA in it.

    Andrei! The complex was created and it has been tested, including and several flying. We just exchanged it for Courier. For better or worse, this is the tenth thing. It’s just not necessary now. Well, except to replace the "Minutemen." But the security of mine launchers has always been higher. In addition, in the event of an exacerbation, the Americans can rearm their Minutemans up to 3 warheads (if there is enough stock of warheads). "Midzhitmen" you will not equip even with all desire
  5. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 9 September 2017 11: 06
    0
    Do not underestimate the capabilities of the United States in the implementation of such a decision. Our scoundrels, traitors of specialists, including those on nuclear weapons, left a lot in the USA in pursuit of the ruble. Some bastards, even now, trying to evade responsibility, like Serebrennikov with supposedly clean and clear eyes, are fleeing to the West. So that the Mericans can also modernize their nuclear forces, it is not for nothing that Trump calls for removing the restrictions on the limit or ceiling of the public debt. So Trump will attract, including Russian investments in the acquisition of securities to include his printing dollar machine
  6. zombirusrev
    zombirusrev 9 September 2017 11: 42
    0
    They have EVERYTHING and they will have everything. The main thing is for us to parry it. And under our government, XER also knows what development model this is a huge question. While the 5th column does not sleep. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-134_Midgetman
  7. Old26
    Old26 9 September 2017 13: 04
    +1
    Quote: Anchonsha
    Do not underestimate the capabilities of the United States in the implementation of such a decision.

    Well and overestimate too. Now they only have work on the new silo ICBM. Spent already decently. To start now, while the contract for work on a new missile is in effect, is expensive and does not make much sense. ICBMs have never been the basis of their nuclear capabilities
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 September 2017 18: 33
      0
      They also work on new bombers., Submarines and cruise missiles.
  8. vlad007
    vlad007 9 September 2017 13: 09
    +1
    It is unclear why the Trump report discusses only ground-based missiles. And they don’t consider sea (underwater) rockets based? If I am not mistaken, they have 18 Ohio boats, in each 24 Trident missiles - three-stage solid fuel with separate individual guidance heads. Is this not enough? Need more?
  9. Leonid Har
    Leonid Har 9 September 2017 13: 39
    0
    Martin Lockheed and Boeing Podi wanted to cut a hundred billion Pentagon under the pretext of creating new types of ICBMs.
    1. aiw
      aiw 9 September 2017 13: 52
      +2
      Why don’t you care about the cuts in Russia? The fact that they saw the Boeing with Lockheed is the problem of American taxpayers. We would have to deal with our sawmill Rogozin and his son ...
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 10 September 2017 15: 42
        0
        Quote: aiw
        Why don’t you care about the cuts in Russia? The fact that they saw the Boeing with Lockheed is the problem of American taxpayers. We would have to deal with our sawmill Rogozin and his son ...

        Americans accumulate resources from all over the world in their country, including from Russia, this is our money too.
  10. Old26
    Old26 9 September 2017 13: 51
    0
    Quote: vlad007
    It is unclear why the Trump report discusses only ground-based missiles. And they don’t consider sea (underwater) rockets based? If I am not mistaken, they have 18 Ohio boats, in each 24 Trident missiles - three-stage solid fuel with separate individual guidance heads. Is this not enough? Need more?

    Because we are talking about ground-based complexes. In the document itself, and those open weightings that I saw - for 2010 and 2016 - are about 70 pages. There is everything. And the countries (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran), and the missile defense system and, of course, the American segment. The development of missiles (ICBMs and SLBMs), the modernization of carriers and warheads.

    Americans have 14 boats, each of them now carries 20 missiles (4 are already deactivated)
  11. Old26
    Old26 9 September 2017 14: 25
    0
    Quote: Old26
    Americans have 14 boats, each of them now carries 20 missiles (4 are already deactivated)

    To be precise, the Americans have 4 boats with cruise missiles and 14 with ballistic missiles. 2 of them are in scheduled repairs (in the total number of missiles and boats are not taken into account). 10 boats now carry 20 missiles each (4 mines are deactivated). And 2 more boats so far carry 24 rockets. A total of 248 Trident-2 missiles
  12. Old26
    Old26 9 September 2017 18: 39
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    They also work on new bombers., Submarines and cruise missiles.

    I meant that a new ICBM is being developed from the ground segment of the strategic nuclear forces.
  13. padded jacket
    padded jacket 9 September 2017 19: 03
    0
    I remember the United States has already tried to create a mobile ICBM, but nothing came of it.
    The Migitmen mobile ICBM (launch weight 13,6t, length 14m, warhead - monoblock, range 11.000km) was not accepted for service
  14. Old26
    Old26 9 September 2017 19: 52
    +2
    Quote: quilted jacket
    I remember the United States has already tried to create a mobile ICBM, but nothing came of it.
    The Migitmen mobile ICBM (launch weight 13,6t, length 14m, warhead - monoblock, range 11.000km) was not accepted for service

    Let's separate the two things. It did not work out and was not adopted for service.
    Mobile-based MX options were developed, but it was decided to place it only in the mine, and not in a mobile form.
    Road option (option "Track") did not reach the "hardware" at all. The wagon for the BZHRK was created and tested with a computer. The "trench" version of the basing was tested with a missile system of the MX missile. In particular, there were tests to "break" the arch of the trench.
    The only mobile complex that has come to flight tests is the Midjitman (“Dwarf”) photo of the launcher which you brought.
    It was not accepted into service, as leaders of the USA and the USSR went to mutual reduction. We did not begin to deploy the Courier, the Americans - Midgetman
    1. padded jacket
      padded jacket 9 September 2017 23: 47
      0
      Quote: Old26
      It was not accepted into service, as leaders of the USA and the USSR went to mutual reduction. We did not begin to deploy the Courier, the Americans - Midgetman

      If this complex were successful, they would have long ago launched its production as opposed to our Yars and other types of mobile ICBMs after the collapse of the USSR
  15. Old26
    Old26 10 September 2017 11: 19
    +1
    Quote: quilted jacket
    If this complex were successful, they would have long ago launched its production as opposed to our Yars and other types of mobile ICBMs after the collapse of the USSR

    The complex was successful. But the START-1 treaty put an end to it. Both sides decided not to deploy small ICBMs. We stopped working on the Courier, the Americans on the Dwarf.
    TTX "Midzhitmena" are somewhat different from those that you brought. In particular, the mass of 13,6 tons was set according to the technical requirements of 1983. Already in 1984, according to the TTT, the mass increased to 15,45 tons, and according to the TTT-1986 - up to 16,78 tons. The warhead also changed. Instead of the 87 kt W-1-21 / Mk475A unit, a 87 kt W-0-21 / Mk300 unit was installed on the ICBMs. But at the same time it was possible to increase accuracy (KVO-90 m)
  16. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 13 September 2017 18: 22
    0
    It would be better if we and they flew together into space, otherwise the Chinese will soon shod everyone!