Military Review

The nuclear triad of the Russian Federation is equipped with new weapons on 79%

29
Equipping modern weapons with a nuclear triad - strategic aviation, intercontinental missiles and nuclear submarines - reached 79%, said Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Defense Vladimir Shamanov


In general, the level of equipment of the Russian nuclear triad with modern weapons has been increased to 79%, which makes it possible to ensure unacceptable damage to any potential aggressor.
- said Shamanov on Monday during a briefing for foreign military attaches.

The nuclear triad of the Russian Federation is equipped with new weapons on 79%


He noted that the upgrading of the Strategic Nuclear Forces (SNF) to new and modernized missile systems of various types of bases continues.

Promising missile systems are being developed in the Strategic Missile Forces, including those with a "heavy" intercontinental ballistic missile.
- Said Shamanov, while adding that the means of overcoming the missile defense are also improving

So, last year, three rocket regiments of the Strategic Missile Forces completed re-equipment of modern mobile ground systems "Yars", said Shamanov.

By naval SNF - the construction of atomic borers of the Borey-A type is under way, the head cruiser of this series Prince Vladimir has been launched, four more ships of this project are under construction
- he said.

In the aviation strategic nuclear forces, the Tu-160 and Tu-95ms aircraft are being upgraded to use new long-range cruise missiles, and the fleet has been replenished with three upgraded aircraft. Work is underway to produce the new Tu-160M aircraft and create a promising long-range aviation complex.
- leads "Interfax" words of Shamanov
Photos used:
Press service of JSC "PO" Sevmash "
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. dm_Russia
    dm_Russia 19 February 2018 16: 16
    +3
    All over the world, and so at night they go for fear. And he is still
    during a briefing for a foreign military attaché

    horror stories tells soldier
    1. maxim947
      maxim947 19 February 2018 16: 17
      +1
      Well, of course .. But the interest is dubious, given the presence of six dozen TU-95 and the removal of the Shark project submarines (and this is minus 40 items) and, as a result, they are not included in the calculation. But the fact that the work is going on is undeniable, and it pleases.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 February 2018 16: 39
        +7
        Quote: maxim947
        But the interest is doubtful

        Yes, how to say ... maybe not
        Quote: maxim947
        Given the presence of six dozens of TU-95 and the decommissioning of submarines of the Shark project

        The carriers have nothing to do with it, it's about the missiles themselves. And here on the Dolphins we have the Sineva / liner, these are new missiles, on the Boreas there is the Bulava, again new, a lot of yaros / poplars from the land explorers and quite modern X-101s on missile-carrying aircraft. So ... anything can be
        1. oldseaman1957
          oldseaman1957 19 February 2018 16: 44
          +1
          The nuclear triad of the Russian Federation is equipped with new weapons on 79%

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          there are a lot of yaros / poplars among the land explorers and quite modern X-101s on missile-carrying aircraft.
          - No words: Russia is a powerful power. Only here again, as in "perestroika", the top is a weak link!
          1. maxim947
            maxim947 19 February 2018 16: 50
            +5
            - No words: Russia is a powerful power. Only here again, as in "perestroika", the top is a weak link!

            Of course, of course, if what kind of jamb is Putin and Co. to blame for everything, if something successful and good happens, then this is so ... in itself is done and the authorities are out of business, are you tired of doing the same thing?
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 19 February 2018 16: 45
          +8
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          and the very modern X-101 on missile carriers.

          X-102, if we are talking about the nuclear component. And why the X-555 was removed from the accounts, as well as the Arsenal of the Iskander, in which there are Caliber (I'm talking about Iskander-K)?
        3. maxim947
          maxim947 19 February 2018 16: 45
          0
          In this case, I will only be glad if I went too far with my skepticism))), but 79% ??? cool of course)) Although why be modest?)))
    2. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 19 February 2018 16: 28
      +12
      Quote: dm_Russia
      All over the world, and so at night they go for fear.

      Why on earth would someone go for themselves? Everyone knows perfectly well that the sane people and nuclear weapons without critical danger for their country will never apply the Russian leadership.
      1. dm_Russia
        dm_Russia 19 February 2018 16: 39
        +1
        And where to take the numerous comments of the leaderships of England, Lithuania, Poland ... about Russian aggression.
        SchA with reference to the words of Vladimir Shamanov hysteria like "give money ..." they ....
        1. Don
          Don 19 February 2018 18: 08
          0
          So far, only you are hysterical. Calm down, drink valerian. All smart people understand, count and compare. The leaderships of neighboring countries simply want on this pretext to acquire powerful protection and serious argument in a conversation with Russia at someone else’s expense. And the military wants to increase defense spending. This is the desire of the military in absolutely any country.
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 19 February 2018 16: 47
        +7
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        Everyone knows perfectly well that the sane people and nuclear weapons without critical danger for their country will never apply the Russian leadership.

        There is one caveat ... what NATO bases are doing on our borders with missile defense systems, you can find out if this whole cogan is not going to fight, while knowing that we are sane people?
    3. RASKAT
      RASKAT 19 February 2018 16: 43
      0
      Personally, it seems to me that there is some kind of cunning in the calculations. First, we still have 9 BDM and BDRM boats in service and they are by no means armed with new R-667 missiles (although they have been modernized three times). Secondly, we still have P-29M heavy missiles in service, and even 36 pieces (maybe a little more). Thirdly, Poplars M are in service, and X-50 missiles which they cannot get rid of just as quickly because they entered the troops before the 55 year. They are still new, why get rid of them.
      Where did the figure in 79% come from then? In my opinion, either the journalists again mixed up something, or the Shamans lied a little. Although it depends on how you count and what they think can be considered new models or new in terms of construction and delivery to the troops. request
      1. Muvka
        Muvka 19 February 2018 16: 53
        +2
        On dolphins, just new missiles. And almost no poplars. Everything in Yars.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Herculesic
    Herculesic 19 February 2018 16: 18
    0
    It’s a pity that our surface fleet is small! We just need to vitally upgrade all 4 nuclear cruisers! And not 2, as decided! Shake the oligarchs, and there will be enough money for five aaianos with the infrastructure to them!
  4. Lexus
    Lexus 19 February 2018 16: 20
    +1
    It is necessary to expand the combat patrol routes of the YaRS and bring Sarmat to mind as soon as possible.
  5. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 19 February 2018 16: 25
    0
    Yes, there would have been enough for the eyes of any aggressor ... The sword should not rust. This is more - such as "cold wraps" for those who have gone crazy with permissiveness striatum. A reminder that the missiles in the mines and on the submarines are not rusty. And quite "volatile" ...
  6. rruvim
    rruvim 19 February 2018 16: 29
    0
    With all due respect to Shamanov, the nuclear triad is equipped with modern weapons not by 79%, but by 78,6%. Just that they noticed a break and a stolen cable near the Teykovskaya division of the Strategic Missile Forces. Let him constantly update the data. Inconvenient to the world community however ...
  7. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 19 February 2018 17: 02
    +1
    And for some reason, today in the VO one of the components of the triad was ignored, in particular the Submarine Fleet. Happy Holidays for all divers and that the number of dives matches the number of swimmers
  8. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 19 February 2018 17: 04
    +3
    To everyone who served on submarines and serves now !!!
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. rruvim
    rruvim 19 February 2018 17: 20
    0
    Shamans are not on the "subfloor", he rushes from heaven.
    For the submarine heroes! For their wonderful boats. For engineers of submariners: atomic scientists, acoustics, hydraulics, electronics engineers, shipbuilders, cryptographers, for Coca and Doc, and for the whole "sub-melting"! drinks
    https://my.mail.ru/music/playlists/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D
    1%80%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D
    0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC-21
    914343279
  11. armourer
    armourer 19 February 2018 18: 44
    0
    Do many nuclear weapons. One thinks, aa, he’s better then, I need to redo it too. The third one and I don’t have one, I need to buy it. And in general, to infinity. Then there is some that will provoke! And still no ball!
    1. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 19 February 2018 22: 16
      +2
      Quote: armourer
      And still no ball!

      Well, no and no trial. yes So we’ll become stardust, as David Bowie bequeathed. wassat
  12. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 19 February 2018 18: 57
    0
    I wonder how they think? Take for example the fleet. Of the 12 submarines, only 3 are new. As a result, only 25% is obtained.
  13. Old26
    Old26 19 February 2018 19: 42
    0
    Quote: NEXUS
    X-102, if we are talking about the nuclear component. And why the X-555 was removed from the accounts, as well as the Arsenal of the Iskander, in which there are Caliber (I'm talking about Iskander-K)?

    It is still worth knowing that when it comes to the nuclear triad, then we are talking first and foremost about the CARRIERS. Let the rocket be X-267 or X-1355. When it comes to the quantitative state, they primarily consider the number of aircraft, rather than missiles on them or TTX missiles. This is secondary. According to an existing contract - ONE PLANE - ONE WARNING.
    You can find out which side here ISKANDERS с CALIBERS ???. Maybe then let’s consider grenade launchers, too, like shells on rocket engines. Something you Andrew DOWN

    Quote: RASKAT
    Personally, it seems to me that there is some kind of cunning in the calculations. First, we still have 9 BDM and BDRM boats in service and they are by no means armed with new R-667 missiles (although they have been modernized three times). Secondly, we still have P-29M heavy missiles in service, and even 36 pieces (maybe a little more). Thirdly, Poplars M are in service, and X-50 missiles which they cannot get rid of just as quickly because they entered the troops before the 55 year. They are still new, why get rid of them.
    Where did the figure in 79% come from then? In my opinion, either the journalists again mixed up something, or the Shamans lied a little. Although it depends on how you count and what they think can be considered new models or new in terms of construction and delivery to the troops. request

    Cunning is over there. It all depends on how to consider and what to consider new. Here is a product designed in the 90s. Its how to consider, new or not. Is the upgraded product new? Or still not. Therefore, the figure is 79% IMHO of the evil one. It’s like in an old riddle. "THREE HAIRS IS MUCH OR LITTLE"
    The answer is - ON THE HEAD - SMALL, IN SOUP - MUCH. So it is here. It all depends on how you count

    As for the R-36M2 - they are already much smaller. Apparently, there are about 26. Topol-M (it is also unclear how to count) - 78. X-55 - these are already being written off, since they are all of the sample of the 80s

    Quote: maxim947
    removal of the Shark project submarines (and this is minus 40 items)

    They have not been in service for 15-17 years. The last 3 years have generally been sucks, before that, a dozen years in reserve. There have been no rockets on them for 15 years now and they are not considered as deployed in any of the treaties. Just as not deployed.
  14. Nross
    Nross 19 February 2018 20: 09
    0
    They pulled an owl onto the globe, effective Moscow-based managers are bad.

    With the combat readiness of the same Tu-160 less than 50%, with half SSBNs issued back in the past millennium, declaring NEW 79% of the triad is a receipt of your own incompetence.

    Yes, the existing strategic nuclear forces are effective against existing enemies, yes - they extended the resource, but ...
    This is the same as saying that you bought a new car, but in fact - extended insurance and maintenance.
    1. shans2
      shans2 19 February 2018 20: 24
      +2
      I love whining and the smell of napalm from scorched sofas) Putin is truly Akbar)
    2. dim7ka
      dim7ka 19 February 2018 20: 56
      +2
      Old missiles only on Squids, on Boreas and Dolphins are fresh Mace, Liner.

      There are only a couple of dozens of poplars and about 120 new Yars, Topol-M 78pcs. also considered modern. There are still 10-20 old Governors.

      According to x-555 / x-102 xs what is the ratio
  15. Old26
    Old26 19 February 2018 22: 31
    0
    Quote: dim7ka
    Old missiles only on Squids, on Boreas and Dolphins are fresh Mace, Liner.

    There are only a couple of dozens of poplars and about 120 new Yars, Topol-M 78pcs. also considered modern. There are still 10-20 old Governors.

    According to x-555 / x-102 xs what is the ratio

    Everything rests on how to count. On the "Boreas" and "Clubs" you can definitely say new. For "Dolphins" and "Liners" - not everything is so simple. The boats themselves are already quite old. Under 30 years old. The missiles, although fresh, but again - “Liner” is the modernization of the R-29RM missile, which is also under 30 years old. The point is. that in the same "Liner" everything is based on the design of 30 years ago. SU is being modernized, possibly engines, but the design ideas laid down in this missile must be recognized as quite unique, already 30-40 years ago. How to count it?

    Topol M. The oldest is over 20 years old. Although still serve. But with aviation - the question is generally unclear how they thought. Calling a new TU-160 aircraft is quite problematic. The bulk of the cars are already under a quarter century. Yes, they are upgrading it.

    Nevertheless, it seems that these figures for victorious reports do not quite reflect the realities.
  16. keeper03
    keeper03 19 February 2018 23: 56
    0
    It would not be a bad idea to warn the United States and fling poplars or YaRS on the Igil barmales in the SAR, so to speak, as a test, with at least high-explosive warheads! yes
  17. Old26
    Old26 20 February 2018 09: 57
    +1
    Quote: keeper03
    It would not be a bad idea to warn the United States and fling poplars or YaRS on the Igil barmales in the SAR, so to speak, as a test, with at least high-explosive warheads! yes

    Do you want a world thermonuclear war? Maybe it’s better to think first before smacking nonsense? Moreover, absolutely not knowing that for these products there are no high-explosive warheads.
    Do you propose to do what we do not allow the United States to do? Namely, to have an ICBM with a non-nuclear warhead? Indeed, at the launching Topol (I really don’t know where you found it) or Yars, it is not written that they are with an unclean warhead. And the American SPRN system having fixed the start of several ICBMs (write yourself "Topolи"and" Yarsamи") it will simply issue a command to launch its own missiles. After all, no one knows where these missiles are aimed? Maybe Israel’s ally in the Middle East, or maybe the US Navy base in the Persian Gulf? Time for a meeting on the hotline "will not be too short a distance?
    You will probably be incredibly glad when a couple of three American nuclear warheads fall on your hometown as a result of such a "cheers-patriotic" "muscle demonstration ???