Military Review

What happened to the Rubezh complex?

Some time ago, in the media with links to unnamed sources, it was reported that the Rubezh mobile ground-based missile system (PGRK) created for the Strategic Rocket Forces successfully passed almost all flight design and state tests into the 2018-2027 state weapons program. supposedly missed. What is the reason for this and what connection can this decision have (if it ever existed at all) with the Treaty on Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (the INF Treaty)? It should be noted right away that there is very little information on Frontier, and the author’s constructions are largely evaluative in nature.

First of all, it is worth noting that an unnamed source in journalism can mean anything from a very high-ranking source to rumors. So, any “unnamed” information that does not receive any support for facts or confirmation in official form should be treated with skepticism. The very wording of the wording outlined sounds weird. They say that they chose between avo-ballistic hypersonic military equipment (AGGB) Avangard and Rubezh, and found that the first is more necessary, and there is money only for one complex. Against the background of the already well-known (but also nothing, in general, not officially confirmed) postponing the program of the Barguzin combat railway complex of the Strategic Missile Forces seems to sound convincing. But not so simple.

From the very beginning, the Barguzin had a lot of ill-wishers inside the Strategic Missile Forces. More precisely, not so - within the command and military-scientific structures of the Strategic Missile Forces there are several prevailing points of view on the development of troops and the required combat missile systems and everything else. And about the revival of BZHRK and "science", and "industrialists", and the troops themselves had from the very beginning two points of view, that we need it, and that is not necessary, and we can get along. Fortunately, the increased combat properties of the Yars PGRK, including survivability, and the ability to carry the separable warheads of individual guidance (RGCHIN) and the increased cast weight and the capabilities of the complex missile defense equipment (PCB), and sharply increased combat patrol areas, allow really do without the "rocket trains." Moreover, the BZhRK should have been created on the basis of a decently converted (here otherwise there is no difference between mine rockets and mobile rockets, and the “train” and even so requires rework), but unified with the mobile and mine options, of the same Yars ( or "Yarsa-S", rather). So that the head parts and PCB PRO were the same. So the opponents of BZhRK referred to the fact that why produce a spreader, they say, a rocket is almost the same, it reduces costs, but the costs of deploying a BZHRK group will be substantial, including due to the creation of solid support for them on the railways ( although there is no need for specially fortified tracks and other things with the Barguzin, because the ICBM in it does not weigh 105, but the order of 50, and the car, of course, is also much easier than the one used in the Molodets BZHRK).

Therefore, solid opposition BZHRK was (and including the developer himself, represented by MIT, the same Y. Solomonov did not hide his skeptic opinion on this issue), and, despite the completion of the initial stages of OCD and the transition to throwing tests, managed to win a temporary victory and to achieve the postponement of the issue with BZHRK, no, not forever, but for several years, so to speak, in store. Or, say, with the activation of the program earlier, in the event of withdrawal from the START-3 Treaty and the transition to the development of strategic nuclear forces according to a long-standing development program in the absence of contractual restrictions (the programs should be for any occasion). The facts show that the program is probably postponed to a later date - there was no information about new launches.

But there was no confrontation between Avangard and Frontier, as between BZHRK and PGRK. And could not be. Here it is necessary to clarify the picture.
Well, firstly, the Avangard 15Ü71 AGGB does not exist by itself, but as part of a combat missile system with the 15А35-71 rocket. The equipment, as was officially reported, is already entering the series, which means it is being installed on 15-35 (UR-100NUTTH) ICBMs of the 3 generation, turning an obsolete rocket into one of the worst weapons in our arsenal of SNFs. Yes, and such missiles are "dry" (not filled and unencapsulated, that is, stored without loss of properties, in the right conditions, almost forever) at one time Ukraine was purchased for a reason - they will be useful. Now they will become "units of the special forces of the Strategic Missile Forces" thanks to Avangard - one should understand that so far the use of the URBN is necessary for anything, but not for breaking through the useless, mythical, US missile defense system (which has not mastered the most primitive ICBMs so far ), because even with the breakthrough of the “ideal missile defense”, which it would have been in the dreams of the Pentagon generals and the stories of the Senate subcommittees, the modern unmanaged and non-maneuvering ICBM and SLBM warheads perfectly cope with the latest complex of missile defense weapons. Avangard is needed for other, while very specific tasks, including even in non-nuclear execution, if necessary.

And also, probably, this same AGBO, but no longer on the 1 piece on the ICBM, will be used on the heavy ICBM Sarmat, say, up to the 3 pieces per rocket. However, no one knows for sure the weight and dimensional parameters of the product, all estimates based on the weight of the old 15А35 MBR are being made, and the known data on the Sarmatian’s throw weight, nevertheless, that the drop weight is not synonymous with the payload of the rocket, it is more her. But judging by the fact that references to Avangard-R or Avangard-Rubezh slipped through in open sources (because of the latter, many confused these two complexes for a long time, which was convenient as part of the cover legend) probably in a different, reduced size and weight version, should have been applied on the “Frontier”. And here it is necessary to figure out what is the "Boundary", and why he could be "moved away" from deployment?

A combat missile system with a small-sized ICBM of increased accuracy began to be developed somewhere in the middle of the “zero” years at MIT. The relatively small weight and dimensions of the product allowed the use of a smaller and lighter chassis, which increases the maneuverability and the survivability of the complex. Instead of the standard for Yarsov MZKT chassis with the wheel formula 16х16, at the initial stage it was supposed to use the MZKT-79292 with the wheel formula 10х10, and then it turned out that this chassis was not enough and took the basis of the MZKT-79291 12х12. When began throwing the product starts is unknown. The first real launch took place from Plesetsk in September 2011. and was declared unsuccessful - the rocket fell in 8km from the starting point. It is possible, however, that the launch was a throwout, and the failure was announced for cover. Then there was another launch from Plesetsk in May 2012. on a completely intercontinental distance - to the Kamchatka Kura, in this launch, as reported, there was a mock-up of a single-block warhead.

But then all subsequent launches were made from Kapustin Yar, which already says a lot - this point is not observed by the enemy’s technical means, and when we want to experience something that Uncle Sam should not be seen, for example, the characteristics of starting or breeding fighting blocks, or a maneuvering BB, or a new PCB PRO - then it flies from KapYar and usually to Sary-Shagan, along the "southern short" or "internal" route. That is how the tests for prospective combat equipment or missile defense missile defense were usually conducted. But they demanded, as a rule, the use of special carriers capable of partially imitating flight conditions at a very short distance, in particular, entering the atmosphere, at a far greater range - we are talking about such carriers as K-65MR and replacing it with Topol-E (alteration of old ICBM "Topol").

And "Frontier" flew from KapYar, first to Kura, in the same 2012. flew just as successfully to Sary-Shagan. Then there was another launch there in the summer of 2013g. and also successful. Then starts were tolerated for a long time, and already in March 2015g. The 5 start-up of the Rubezh, also on the southern short route, was also successful and it was already the test control test - on the basis of it, a conclusion was issued with a recommendation to adopt Rubezh BRK. There were vague information that in all launches, except the first successful one, the already divided head of the individual guidance was tested. Moreover, there were rumors in the media that the Frontier would have maneuvering BBs as a standard vehicle, but it seems that this is not the case, at least not at the initial stage. It seems more like he has - standard head pieces for our new lightweight ICBMs and SLBMs - that is, "Yars" and "Maces", which include up to medium power 6 BB. Such a short cycle of rocket tests may indicate that the design used a lot of what was worked out on previous rockets, that is, stages, combat equipment, and so on. Steps, probably two.

And so, after a successful start-up, although more launches were expected in 2016-2017. - was not yet one. As we can see, the matter stalled before the new GPO, although there was information about preparations for the deployment of the "Boundary" in two missile divisions in the west and east of the Russian Federation.
What is the matter? Here you should pay attention to the range shown by this small and light (approximately less than 40t) rocket. The longest range was shown in the second launch and it is slightly more than 6000km. And the rest starts - on the range of order 2000-2500km. “Short” launches are generally a serious test for a rocket, no matter how difficult it is to launch a maximum distance. The lack of a launch to check this very maximum range, as usual “to the remote Pacific Ocean”, together with very “short” launches, convinced the Americans that the “Frontier” is not an ICBM, but a BRSD. And since then, he has regularly appeared in American accusations against the Russian Federation about the violation of the INF Treaty.

The Americans accuse ours, as is known, of the fact that the Iskander-M OTRK includes the land-based 9М728 KR, and now the 9М729, one of which looks like a slightly shortened version of the Kan 3М14 marine KP (with ranges, as is known , of the order of 2.5-3.5 thousand in non-nuclear and nuclear versions), and the second - as its full copy. Of course, if you see a beast that looks like a cat, behaves like a cat and is the size of a cat, then you should assume that this is a cat. But the Americans are unable to prove the identity of these missiles - the external similarity is small, but officially, on land, these CRs for the "forbidden" under the INF Treaty have not been launched over 500km. That is, not caught - not a thief. Similarly, Americans blame us for "Boundary." They say that you have MRBR, and on 6000km it flew with a reduced load in order to "climb" into the START-3 Treaty.

It would seem, live and enjoy - the Russians, in your opinion, the BRSD, which does not threaten the US (and they don't care about Europe), are counted as ICBMs, depriving themselves of some positions on the carriers in the Treaty, which is not so critical for the Russian Federation, which has a large margin places on carriers - we have less of them than is limited by the Treaty. It is much worse that they, it turns out, will be forced to consider the charges in the Treaty, in fact, non-strategic. But they, however, itching to do, the desire to hurt Russia and accuse it is stronger than logic.

The Russian Federation officially denies all accusations, putting forward a response to the United States. In the creation of target rockets with characteristics similar to MRSD, and in creating opportunities for placing Tomahawk RNRS in Europe as part of placing SM-3 Block 1B missiles in vertical launch modules Mk-41 on 8 cells (taken from the US Navy, where these settings are also used to place "Tomahawks"). But even if the Tomahawks are actually put in there, there will be very few of them, for our air defense this number means nothing. In addition, the nuclear "Tomahawk" has long been converted into normal, and the charges for them have long been disposed of, and there is nowhere new to take. The Russian Federation also accuses the United States of creating long-range drone UAVs, which is estimated from the point of view of the INF Treaty also as a violation (although there were no such vehicles at the time of its signing), although no drone carries any nuclear charges.

The parties accuse each other, but no one wants to be the first to leave the Treaty. The Americans, on the contrary, recently announced that they want to "return to the ships of the Kyrgyz Republic in nuclear equipment" and "put on the SLBM Trident-2" BB very low power ", and this supposedly will force the Russian Federation to" return to the INF Treaty. " Logic in such a statement - like a chicken, and assessments of reality and their capabilities - like a chicken, crossing the road. The US currently does not have any nuclear-based sea-based missile systems (SLCMs), and even if you recreate the nuclear Tomahawk or create a new SLCM under the NGLAW program, this will not help, there are no nuclear charges for them anywhere in the arsenal. At the beginning of last September, the 3822 warhead remained (now the process of “strengthening America’s nuclear power” cannot be stopped by a cheerful tweet from Uncle Donald), of which less than 2000 W76-1 and a little more than 300 W88 on the Trident 2 SLBM, a little less 500 W87 ICBMs "Minuteman-3", less than 600 W80-1 the CD air-launched AGM-86V, the rest - the remnants of the bombs in nedorezanny-83 and about five hundred bombs in-61, which is planned to be turned into 350-600 in-61- 12. Americans will not be able to produce new charges very soon, only in 2030-s. Well, it is not very clear, even if these statements were not a pure bluff, then how would these measures "force" us to "correct" violations, "are they real or not?"

Russia, too, is not in a hurry from the Treaty - for now we are satisfied with being there, and we also don't give a damn about the accusations, and we clearly do not intend to saw the winged Iskanders, because there is no evidence. Therefore, probably, "Boundary" and slowed down, so as not to give regular grounds for accusations. Although the "Frontier" formally present nothing, too: according to the range shown, it fits in the ICBM, and it cannot be excluded that it can fly even lower payloads.

And not the fact that this rocket was created as a potential MRSD, rather, everything is somewhat more cunning. It can also be an ICBM, especially with equipping with aeroballistic hypersonic military equipment — say, a ballistic missile is working on 6 + thousand km, and further to the target in the upper atmosphere, a hypersonic gliding and maneuvering apparatus slides, a smaller version of the Avant-garde, say, thousands another three kilometers - that’s the intercontinental range. And the continental nuclear tasks for a "large average" range, which are not very convenient to perform with conventional ICBMs, would be decided by Rubezh.

But after all, for the "Frontier", the AGBO, if it was in development, was hardly tested - if so, then why deploy a complex like an ICBM, since it is not quite so far? To annoy the Americans? Maybe it's better to wait? Let “Frontier” for now, which, if desired, can be launched into the series very quickly and deployed in small quantities too, will stay in stock. Say, until Trump writes the next few tweets from the bay and comes out of the INF Treaty, telling how this will increase the nuclear power and what kind of smart missiles he has. By that time, perhaps, the chassis from the MZKT will be replaced by the chassis created by the KAMAZ OCD - it is more promising, and in terms of maneuverability with all steering wheels will give a lot of points ahead to the Minsk chassis, and everyone has a cabin ” Platform "armored, which is also a plus.

Although judging by the development of relations between the Russian Federation and the United States, which are rolling down almost as fast as the American nuclear arsenal, even faster - many of the agreements between the two superpowers may cease to exist soon enough. Or maybe the mind, nevertheless, is enough not to make such rash steps with treaties on issues of strategic stability. Although, as the practice of previous American steps shows, that with the ABM Treaty, that with a "hypersonic challenge" in the form of a "fast global strike" - the Americans did worse only for themselves, and Russia got an advantage. So it will be with the INF. Yes, and it would be better for Americans not to take other hasty steps.

This, of course, is about the military confrontation in Syria - Stormy Daniels is, of course, a prominent lady with outstanding qualities, but not beautiful Elena, and Trump is never young Paris, not only war but armed incidents because of her super powers to arrange.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 April 16 2018 05: 39
    Author +++++++++++. It is interesting, reasoned, and without special special terms, which makes the article understandable to a large circle of people. Thank.
    1. maxim947
      maxim947 19 June 2018 18: 29
      Excellent article from both a technical and analytical point of view
  2. andrewkor
    andrewkor April 16 2018 05: 46
    All the rockets are good, choose to taste! But there’s not enough money for all Wunderwaffen. There’s no wedge. Everywhere, what’s happening with the state program, VO readers know very well.
    1. hydrox
      hydrox April 16 2018 11: 43
      Quote: andrewkor
      the printing press seems to be under control.

      And what does the printing press have to do with it, if ALL the added value produced in the vast expanses of Russia and theoretically (and just humanly!) Can be realized in investments, while it strengthens the economy and finances of our enemies, spreading offshore by our liber authorities.
      And yes, we lack not only ICBMs, we also lack any other modern and technically sophisticated weapons: the army is not something that is not equipped and not armed, it looks even better :: in pants, but without a gymnast, in boots, but without a shirt, with the Su-57, but also with the Mosin rifle and the T-72 ...
      And it’s clear that we are learning to save by upgrading the T-72 and T-90 (at the same time managing to sell them !!), otherwise we will never have enough money for everything that we still need (education and another social program ...) , in reforming our economy from the liberals, in the liberation of OUR (former nationwide) property from the foreign compradors of Russian origin sticking to it.
      But look at what magnificent works of weaponry from time to time give us the defense industry (which also need to be fed!).
      So we will tolerate it a little more until the military power of our main multi-headed enemy begins to dry out, and there we will see who will laugh well (because they won today, without opening a single cover, without making a single launch !!!)
  3. ver_
    ver_ April 16 2018 06: 32
    Quote: svp67
    Author +++++++++++. It is interesting, reasoned, and without special special terms, which makes the article understandable to a large circle of people. Thank.

    ... yeah, the one who mastered ... the vast majority of people read diagonally ..
  4. san4es
    san4es April 16 2018 08: 22
    hi In the photo in the article, the anti-ship coastal complex ... In the article they write about the missile system with a small-sized ICBM
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 16 2018 11: 15
      Fedot, but not that one! laughing fool
      1. faiver
        faiver April 16 2018 13: 34
        I've also read and scratched my turnips for photos laughing
    2. dim7ka
      dim7ka April 16 2018 15: 54
      It looks like the editors from the MO site now work here too. Again some kind of left picture stuck
  5. Kyzmich
    Kyzmich April 16 2018 08: 51
    It is unclear what side of the old. How shit mammoth complex 4K51 "Boundary" liquid-liquid KR P-15M?
    Do not confuse it with the RS-26, Rubezh (Vanguard), with the intercontinental ballistic missile, which is 40 tons lighter than the RS-24 Yars and is its further development.
    1. April 20 2018 17: 26
      How, how ... what Yandex issued, then the girl inserted it,
      a rocket, for her - just like in a children's picture - a cigar with small wings. And if smart Yandex says that it is Boundary, then it is.
      Moreover, that "shit of a mammoth" and the truth Boundary.
      1. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich April 20 2018 22: 38
        A. Well, I understood it here))
        N foreground aircraft carrier France "Charles de Gaulle"

  6. Engineer
    Engineer April 16 2018 08: 54
    Remove the photo from the article and do not disgrace! In the photo is Rubezh, but the Soviet coastal anti-ship complex with the Termit P-15M missile, and in the article is the story about the RS-26 Rubezh - a strategic strategic mobile missile ground missile system with an intercontinental missile.
  7. Old26
    Old26 April 16 2018 10: 44
    EDITORS! Remove the photo of the complex, which has nothing to do with the topic of the article !!!

    Quote: Kyzmich
    Do not confuse it with the RS-26, Rubezh (Vanguard), with the intercontinental ballistic missile, which is 40 tons lighter than the RS-24 Yars and is its further development.

    Do not make such announcements. It may be a RS-26 and weighs 40 tons, but it isn’t any easier than 40 tons of Yars, since it has about 49 tons of launch

    The equipment, as it was officially reported, is already entering the series, which means it is being installed on the 15rd generation ICBM 35A100 (UR-3NUTTH), turning an obsolete missile into one of the most terrible weapons in the arsenal of our strategic nuclear forces. And such dry missiles (unfilled and unencapsulated, that is, stored without loss of properties, under the right conditions, almost forever) were purchased from Ukraine for good reason - they will come in handy.

    Do not think that even non-fired missiles can be stored forever. There are a large number of components that eventually fail and require replacement. That is, simply to take and put it into service without events is impossible.
    Further, it is not known in what state the control system for this missile is. But she is Ukrainian, Hartron. Further. The 15Y71 rocket used in the tests is really a rework. The original designation is 15A35-71, even earlier - 15A35. It differed from the standard one by the increased head fairing (about 7 meters longer). So you have to redo the mine. So far, there is no evidence that such alterations have begun.
    No one knows how many of those received a dozen and a half years ago, whether 20 or 30 rockets were already used in tests. But I'm afraid that at least half was used. But even if you have not used a single one, you will have to upgrade the mines anyway, only much more

    And also, probably, this is the same anti-tank missile launcher, but not by 1 each on ICBMs, and will be used on the heavy Sarmat ICBMs, say, up to 3 pieces per missile. However, no one knows exactly the weight and size parameters of the product, all estimates based on the cast weight of the old ICBM 15A35 are made, and the known data on the Sarmat missile weight are not forgotten, however, that the cast weight is not synonymous with the missile payload, it is more her.

    Well, the cast weight of Sarmat, which is replicated on the net, is also not a fact. And ZV has never really been synonymous with payload. only deputy defense minister Yu. Borisov can afford such mistakes

    AGBO, however, probably in a different, reduced size and weight version, should have been applied at the Rubezha. ?

    It has never been voiced that "Frontier" will be the carrier of AGBO. From the very beginning it was said that the BO at this complex would be without a “bus”
    1. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 16 2018 15: 36
      Quote: Old26
      Do not make such announcements. It may be a RS-26 and weighs 40 tons, but it isn’t any easier than 40 tons of Yars, since it has about 49 tons of launch

      It is about full weight with the installation.
      It announced a difference of about 110 against 80 tons.
      What changes the transporter itself, making it more compact.
      1. Senior manager
        Senior manager 3 May 2018 09: 13
        There is no need to remove photos. It would be useful for editors to write a name under a photo with a technique and there would be no disturbances. The article, sensible, about missiles, well, let it be some nito missile, but with the exact name. I have such an opinion.
  8. loaln
    loaln April 16 2018 13: 31
    A lot of words. So much that the meaning is not visible. It would be better if they brought or themselves calculated the likelihood of defeating ANY SOIL complex. This has already been done many times. And only after that write similar opuses.
  9. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch April 16 2018 13: 31
    Very interesting article! The main thing is the choice and the aircraft are not too different. It is clear that only economic problems hinder the construction of the BZhRD. And it is needed! Further, as they say: "Wait and see!"
    1. kalibr
      kalibr April 21 2018 13: 19
      The best weapon is a bucket of diamonds. Bring and say - yours! For this ... but you refuse ... sooner or later we will kill! And no rockets needed!
  10. drzzzlo
    drzzzlo April 16 2018 15: 49
    The thing in the photo has already been in service for 40 years, now it has been replaced by the Bastion, what is the state program for 2018-27)?
    And not the Strategic Missile Forces but the BRAV.
  11. Old26
    Old26 April 16 2018 16: 10
    Quote: Kyzmich
    Quote: Old26
    Do not make such announcements. It may be a RS-26 and weighs 40 tons, but it isn’t any easier than 40 tons of Yars, since it has about 49 tons of launch

    It is about full weight with the installation.
    It announced a difference of about 110 against 80 tons.
    What changes the transporter itself, making it more compact.

    Kamrad! You wrote that the Rubezh is 40 tons 6n lighter than the Yars, not a complex with the installation, namely a rocket. Hence my post
    Quote: Kyzmich
    "Frontier" (Vanguard) with an intercontinental ballistic missile, which is 40 tons lighter than the RS-24 "Yars" and

    Quote: polkovnik manuch
    And he is needed!

    Is he really needed? In the USSR, it was planned to deploy 7 divisions throughout the entire Soviet Union. Deployed - 4. Now ONE is planned. And the whole infrastructure must be created from scratch? What for? Isn’t it easier to deploy several additional PGRK regiments?

    Quote: polkovnik manuch
    Further, as they say: "Wait and see!"

    God grant that they do not see. To invest billions in what is not necessary - nonsense
  12. misti1973
    misti1973 April 16 2018 17: 29
    All this is actually a discussion of non-existent things. Besides Yars. They pushed one project, abandoned another ... Maybe this will happen with Vanguard?
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri April 16 2018 20: 31
    Change the picture. What does the PU PKR "Boundary" (RCC "Termite" x2) have to do with it?
    1. Someone from the fleet
      Someone from the fleet April 18 2018 23: 16
      "Cool specialists" wrote an article and made out! =)))
  15. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin April 16 2018 23: 27
    I don’t know where I went, I don’t know, but I have to do it in reserve.
  16. Borders
    Borders April 19 2018 15: 06
    As I understand it, both the Bastion anti-ballistic missile system and the Bal ballistic missile system should replace the Redut and Rubezh anti-aircraft missile systems (put into service in 1966). Maybe the author was better off focusing on comparing these two systems? Pros and cons ... Say, “Bastion” was created in two versions - mobile (“Bastion-P”) and stationary (“Bastion-S”), uses RCC "Yakhont". The advantages of this type of anti-ship missiles include over-the-range firing range, complete autonomy of use in combat conditions, a set of flexible trajectories, supersonic speed during the entire flight, low visibility for modern radars, and complete unification for a number of carriers. In addition, an autonomous guidance system allows missiles to evade enemy air defense weapons. The full ammunition of the Bastion coastal anti-ship missile system includes 36 anti-ship missiles (12 anti-ship missiles with 3 anti-ship missiles each). The deployment time of the complex is less than 5 minutes, and the frequency of shots is 2-5 seconds.
    At the same time, “Ball” uses small-sized subsonic anti-ship missiles "Uranus". The firing range of the complex is 120 km. The complex consists of four SPUs of 8 anti-ship missiles each, two self-propelled command and control command and control posts using the Harpoon-Bal target designation radar, and four transport-loading vehicles. The only Bal ballistic missile system manufactured for mining was transferred to the same brigade of the Black Sea Fleet, where it is now located. Formally, the complex was adopted in 2008, but it never got into mass production. The export option is Bal-E with export 3M24E missiles.
  17. Sergey Lyoshkin
    Sergey Lyoshkin 13 May 2018 17: 37
    It’s a pity that they did not launch
  18. Charik
    Charik 20 June 2018 00: 48
    And YAHONT is PKR-P800? or ONYX-nepoyuma.
    ASASHOKA 25 July 2018 21: 20
    First, we need to “comb” the entire classification and belonging of missiles already in service for modern tasks and objects, then figure out which of them missiles “will not” fulfill one or another modern task and quickly consider replacing, developing or finalizing a product ( to reduce costs), which this task will already be able to fulfill, and besides all, to calculate which, in what quantity, where (type, type of troops) and by year the products will gradually come out t.s. for scrap. There is no need to produce rockets, you need their necessary (constantly renewed, due to aging and disposal) amount, which is designed for modern tasks, based on the response to the abilities of the adversary and his technological reserve / capabilities. It is physically possible to kill an adversary once, twenty times to do the same - no need. You need to understand what will be needed and how much is the same “Vanguard” and what it will replace, where the Rubezh PGRK was planned and what will replace it or have already replaced it, decide on the Barguzin or Molodets BZHRK by their need and quantity, well, t .d. etc. .. But there are both Bastion and Bal ballistic missile systems and whether they should replace the Redut and Boundary missile systems ... In general, there are a lot of questions, but the topic is good and the article is correct. And the picture needs to be replaced))).