Terrible "Avant-garde" and terrible "Petrel"

28
Apparently, the new Russian weapon, such as aeroballistic hypersonic maneuvering combat equipment (AGPS) ICBM Avangard 15YU71, hypersonic aeroballistic rocket "Dagger" and so on. Still great frightened not only the military and politicians, hard pretending that neither honor nor pants suffered , but the population began to reach something. And, of course, the "independent" US media reacted to this with numerous publications that all these Russian news are not so terrible, they say, made on the knee, rusty crafts are not very reliable. In recent days, CNBC has been particularly noted on this field.





At first, these guys released material that the Americans, it turns out, did not lose miserably the hypersonic race of Russia they had started (which they no longer catch up with), but now they are close to losing to China. No, the United States did not lose, according to CNBC, the United States is simply pursuing a "different goal." Apparently, as hunters from the famous Russian folk cinema about vodka and hunting - their goal was to feed, water the beast, well, and sit well, and not shoot the prey. The United States, they say, are going "in a more complicated way", because "in many aspects the US race is different from the race of Russia and China, since these two countries are developing nuclear-warhead missiles, and Washington is interested in conventional missiles."

Which, of course, is complete nonsense - for the Avangard AGGBO both fusion equipment of high or high power, and normal and low or even extremely low power is provided, but the usual equipment is not completely ruled out. The Dagger, or, say, the X-32 hypersonic RCC or Zircon, is also (will be) both in the usual and in the special equipment versions. What is there in the Chinese, it is difficult to say, but most likely, in the same way. It’s just that their Wu-14 demonstrator being developed is very far from both the serial product and our analogs, which are practically the second, if not the third, generation of such systems in the USSR / RF, and, probably, for the time being it is about ensuring accuracy sufficient for a number of goals of conventional warheads, to think very early CNBC also urges not to pay attention to the fact that the Russian Federation "tests its hypersonic systems much more often." As well as the fact that these tests are being successfully carried out, the OCD is either completed successfully, or close to that, and the American demonstrators somehow haven’t been left with a dead Mustang. Sleep on, dear inhabitants of Baghdad, everything is calm in Baghdad!

In the next “approach to the bar”, CNBC journalists took it, no, not our William, you see, Shakespeare, but for the Avangard AGGBO. Everything, as usual, was with reference to "unnamed intelligence sources." But if some American journalists, under these are hidden sources in the Pentagon (which they distort or lie these sources, but they are), then the rest, obviously, the source is the OBS agency, "One woman said." And from the lack of specialized knowledge and normal education borzopisty mercilessly pierced. So, they have 15Ü71 already exists in the usual military equipment, although they previously wrote about "the other way the US in a hypersonic race." Moreover, they are not even sure that there is any explosive in the usual version of the board - they say, the kinetic energy will be like that when hit, that even without explosives it will blow everything up as it should. At the same time, they for some reason lowered the speed of our “Vanguard” right up to the number M = 5 (5 speeds of sound) instead of about 15-20М in reality. Although, of course, right above the target, the speed will be much lower due to braking in dense layers of the atmosphere ... seconds before the explosion. But, apparently, they and such a speed seemed "gigantic."

“Intelligence sources” told CNBC that Avangard was “successfully tested twice in 2016”, then “unsuccessfully” in 2017 once (allegedly the rocket crashed right after launch, “in a few seconds”) and it will be tested in the summer again. Well, if the launch was "unsuccessful", then 15Ü71 as part of a complex with XBNXXX15 ICBMs would not be recommended for use. And this device flies not from 35, but from approximately 2016-2010. (in 2011, the “high-ranking representative of the General Staff” informed Interfax that the first equipment was successfully tested on an ICBM for the first time) and test launches were much more than 2010, reported by CNBC. And before that, as it is believed, the 3 flew the apparatus of the previous generation, allegedly having the 2004Ü15 index, and quite successfully (but, obviously, the best is the enemy of the good). Unsuccessful launches, of course, were, where without them on the test, but no one knows that the carrier used for testing this equipment fell last year immediately after the start - it was he who had to fall almost directly on the launcher; hide it.

The same "sources" deceived the gullible journalists by informing them that Avangard will appear in service no earlier than 2020. But the President of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the RF Armed Forces literally in a few days slyly, as it should be, the Kremlin tyrant intervened brainwashing journalists from the United States, saying that Avangard will be in service next year, 2019, and we cannot exclude the possibility of deploying the UGBO on redeemed from Ukraine and carefully preserved “dry,” that is, unfilled, ICBM UR-100НУТТХ (15А35) will start already at year, and in future missiles it will be declared to be deployed in accordance with the START-3.

Since he is still acting and has not been forgotten by the Americans on his own head, as usual. As it was with the ABM Treaty, it will be with the INF Treaty, and so on. However, given the leaked plans to build in the next decade 6 extra ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) project 955A, in addition to the existing pr.3 955 and 5 pr.955A under construction, and the total number in the 14 224 cruisers with missiles and to 1344 combat units (6 per rocket) on board, it seems that the Kremlin does not really believe that START-3 after 2021g. will live and be well or will be replaced by a similar one. Because in the limit on the SNF test warheads in 1550, this grouping will be “cramped” even with a reduced number of warheads on the missiles, because you also need a place for the ICBM grouping and for bombers (which, however, are counted as carriers of a single charge).

The mysterious “sources” continue to be plagued by the honest journalists of CNBC and further, this time about a cruise missile of unlimited ground-based range with a nuclear rocket engine (YARD), which allegedly has an 9М730 index and received the name of its own “Petrel” on the basis of Internet voting.

All of the tests conducted by a Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile were unsuccessful, the American television channel CNBC said, citing sources familiar with the US intelligence report. "According to US estimates, the longest test flight (nuclear missiles) lasted more than two minutes, during which the rocket crossed 22 miles (more than 35 kilometers), then lost controllability and crashed. The shortest test lasted four seconds with a five-mile flight (eight kilometers), "- says the channel.

According to him, the tests took place from November 2017 to February 2018.

CNBC sources claim that the development of the rocket has been going on since the 2000-s and that the gasoline engine (gasoline-powered engine) is used at the launch stage, and only then the nuclear power plant is turned on. During the tests, the nuclear power plant did not start, the TV channel reported, citing statements from its sources.


When considering this "insider", it immediately becomes clear that there is another attempt to hang the doshirak over the ears of gullible readers, or a mercilessly stupid interpretation and processing of real information. For example, what kind of gasoline engine can a cruise missile have? There "Rotax" stands from drone, which lifts a rocket weighing several tons into the air? No, the photos and videos posted on the network show that the launch is carried out from a ground-based mobile launcher using an obviously solid-fuel launch booster - this is perfectly visible from the stream of fire, and it is also clear from its appearance that this is a solid-fuel booster. And certainly not a gas engine.

On the same frames, you can see a rocket in flight, already with a cruising engine, that is, the thesis about a fall immediately after launch is incorrect in at least one launch. Further, the "source" somehow does not converge with speeds. So he has a rocket for 4 seconds flying 8 km, that is, the speed at the start immediately amounted to 2 km / s (the dynamics, comparable to the 53Т6 anti-ballistic missile, are more than that, no one is capable of this). That is more than 2 minutes - just something 35 km, which is much more in line with the expected and declared speed of the “Petrel”: less than the speed of sound, but more than usual for a long-range cruise ship. As for the nuclear power plant, according to the official report, it was successfully tested for a regular duration of work - on the ground stand. How much she flew off on the rocket itself is not known to any of those not involved, but last year’s hype, allegedly around the “radioactive trace” from Russia, could have tested the Petrel with the operating reactor.

And the launch, where the rocket flew just 4 seconds, could take place in reality. And even had to take place - after all, any tests begin with throwing launches. But this does not mean that he is unsuccessful. Also could and were carried out launches without a nuclear engine, on its turbojet, say, a substitute, for testing the airframe of the rocket. It is clear that there, too, the range could be small, it all depends on the purpose of the tests. But the accident, of course, could be. But no one would announce a rocket, which has several unsuccessful launches in the asset and nothing more, from such a high rostrum - this is absolutely certain. Yes and no, and the Americans cannot have reliable sources for the “Petrel”, and if they did, they would not begin to light them up (after all, before the testing process of such a system, an extremely narrow circle of people was allowed, and the organs could quickly find "flowing" information). The technical means of reconnaissance also hardly showed much to the Americans - all these tests were carried out only in the absence of prying eyes and ears in the test area, with their preliminary displacement, observing the flight schedule of the orbital spacecraft of the enemy and other important rituals.

Before the 1 March, the Americans didn’t even mention a similar rocket in any document, they hardly knew anything about it precisely and specifically, although the echoes of this work in open sources still surfaced, but it was necessary to know for sure look for. And this few people knew. So, it seems, and here the Americans are lying. However, this does not prevent many of our mass media from actively disseminating this dubious information, and actively commenting on some of our politicians who are clearly not in the know on the subject under discussion. The purpose of such publications in the United States itself is, of course, to smooth out the negative effect in society from the fact that "exclusive" America in this matter was exclusively raped by "non-democratic" Russians.

However, given the veil of secrecy over such projects, there will still be a lot of insinuations around their progress, both in Russia and in the West.
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    23 May 2018 07: 54
    again about the "gopher" conversation ... smile
    1. +4
      23 May 2018 08: 12
      The usual tactic is to downplay the capabilities of the weapons of a potential enemy. For complacency. bully
      1. +5
        23 May 2018 11: 52
        Quote from Uncle Lee
        The usual tactic is to downplay the capabilities of the weapons of a potential adversary.

        There is an idea that "let them downplay."
        1) will be calmer .. at least by self-deception;
        2) underestimation of potency. the adversary plays his own, often invisible, but no less important role;
        1. 0
          23 May 2018 13: 24
          Works both ways! laughing
        2. +5
          23 May 2018 15: 29
          Quote: Lycan
          underestimation of potency. the adversary plays his own, often invisible, but no less important role;

          I dare to recall the words of the Führer that he said after the report of the Wehrmacht intelligence chief: If I knew how many Russian T-34 tanks I would never attack them.
          Somehow, however.
          1. +2
            23 May 2018 16: 58
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            If I knew how many Russian T-34 tanks I would never attack them

            It may well turn out that this is only a lyrical statement. The flywheel of the war had already been launched, and these processes had only the character of building up "speed."
            Otherwise, what would end the partition of a sovereign European country in the Munich agreement?
            And the Anschluss of Austria?
            And the invasion of Poland?
            Do you really think that the Fuhrer would have stopped if he had seized all of Europe? Would everyone be “suddenly” forgiven upon reaching the scale of the Reich before the “All-European Empire?” It is unlikely. Just by accumulating forces and equipment, he would start 5-7 years later.
    2. Ren
      0
      24 May 2018 09: 39
      CNBC-Certain News Babushka Chant. wassat
  2. +4
    23 May 2018 07: 54
    The discussion of the technical characteristics of this weapon resembles fortune-telling on coffee grounds ... really, no one knows what ... Secrecy has not been canceled yet ...
    1. +4
      23 May 2018 11: 44
      Quote: Vard
      The discussion of the technical characteristics of this weapon resembles fortune-telling on coffee grounds ... really, no one knows what ... Secrecy has not been canceled yet ...

      It’s easy to understand the so-called leadership "global media", which they consider themselves to be like CNBC, because you constantly need to give out something as they say "uphill and be in trend." The management gave an instruction; the journalist wrote an article. Was there a "mysterious source" or wasn’t there, or maybe the journalist wrote an article in the nearest pub in a company with local goofs, or dictated by local special services, who cares, because no one will check this, and none of the interested parties will give any rebuttals will be.
      1. 0
        24 May 2018 14: 44
        Quote: credo
        "mysterious source"

        Source, source ... Why not understand something? Our counterintelligence Zadornov was too carried away, so the native overseas people bred like suckers, and they were glad, their ears were hung ...
        It is unclear where only the authorities look at these counter-intelligence agents, is it really possible to treat animals so inhumanely ... that is, people ...
  3. +10
    23 May 2018 08: 16
    Everyone left for America and Israel at one time, the information hung, there were no information carriers left.
  4. +5
    23 May 2018 08: 17
    So I was surprised reading the "experts" from CNBC. Fantastic awareness or fantastic rashness? Given the level of development secrecy - rather the second wassat
    1. +3
      23 May 2018 11: 35
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Fantastic awareness or fantastic rashness?

      What kind of awareness are we talking about? There is an inform war, in which news came to the mattresses with all the passion about our developments, and personally from HIM. The inhabitants began to ask questions in the United States about this, they say, do we have any protection? What do we pay taxes for? And in this regard, all these articles such as CNBC are designed for the NATO and American inhabitants.
      1. +1
        23 May 2018 12: 31
        Quote: NEXUS
        What do we pay taxes for?

        Come on you! This is a phrase from Hollywood movies of the 90s. Do you think a fraudster country lives taxing honest citizens?
  5. +16
    23 May 2018 08: 28
    C'mon, what can I say about the gasoline engine. Take it easy overseas "friends"
    A dagger, a dagger, it generally flies on a rubber motor. And Armata is made of plywood.
  6. +7
    23 May 2018 10: 43
    It is very nice when the sworn partner goes crazy with the unknown, realizing that he is in full flight! And then we are all we! Now let them poke their nose under their tail!
  7. 0
    23 May 2018 11: 51
    It does not present any difficulty to find constructive pictures and hummingbirds and tomahawks. Therefore, it is obvious that the technologies are completely identical. It means that it is not difficult to imagine how not only super-modern engines will look like in some of these and others. Well, since I understand why and for what reasons any modern propulsors and, accordingly, turbines cannot be spun above the limits of their rotational speeds and why they cannot be made economical, it is not difficult to imagine performance characteristics based on the known data. Therefore, it’s funny to watch and hear statements that have nothing to do with reality.
  8. +1
    23 May 2018 12: 21
    The author makes an attempt to convince the fool of something, forgetting that it is not possible to convince the fool, and not the foolish people gathered there, but the biased ones and their task to at least oppose Russia. So they dodge, like in a frying pan.
  9. +2
    23 May 2018 12: 30
    There is such a method for intelligence services called “VBROS!” In order to see how the leaders of the states react. Looking at how they reacted in the Kremlin, we can conclude that the Americans screwed up! As this article confirms! Well done ....
    1. 0
      23 May 2018 12: 59
      Yes, but there is such a method as manipulating information flow algorithms, some of which can be stuffing and objective information. Therefore, you should not judge and draw conclusions only on the basis of one particular process.
  10. +2
    23 May 2018 13: 06
    Again they will present us with cruel treatment of animals and Tridvaras, nod at the number of prisoners, beaver stew and non-stop presidential term laughing

    I stock up on popcorn and wait for exciting movie battles with new Schwarzeneggers and stolon lol
  11. +3
    23 May 2018 13: 21
    Thanks for the article, as always, interesting, informative and intelligible.
    In the course of reading, a number of questions arose.
    1. If we take a hypothetical situation in which the United States is armed with hypersonic delivery vehicles, such as the same Vanguard, but non-nuclear, then will the States be able to effectively work out (within the framework of the PGS) concept (put them inoperative before return launches) by these means on our silos? Which seem to be reasonably well protected even from low-altitude nuclear explosions? It seems that Sivkov read about a similar scenario.
    2. To what extent, in your assessments, the so-called “A strike at the appointed time” at the moment and in 5-7 years, while maintaining the existing trends in the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation, China and NATO? Is there a possibility of meeting acceptable losses (preserving the majority of the industrial potential and structure of the state as such) with a joint preventive strike on NATO agreed upon and supported by China?
    3. The START-3 treaty at the moment is clearly beneficial to the States for objective reasons. And if you write with a certain degree of certainty that after 2021. this agreement will not be renewed, which means you think that in this case it is the Russian Federation that will initiate its termination?
    I have already noticed the practice of a sharp shift of the timelines to the left, and not only in the defense sphere (for example, the same Crimean bridge). An extremely effective disinformation tool, especially for those who rely not on information obtained by intelligence, but on the media :) I have no doubt that we will see both Sarmatians and Poseidon standing in service much earlier than the stated deadlines)
    About the "gasoline-powered engine" already read, amused :) Why not just a steam engine? :)) Clinic, in a word ...
    "Petrel", IMHO, is still too good to be true. But I'm a little retrograde, I can add skepticism)
  12. +1
    23 May 2018 19: 41
    The very information about the presence of such weapons in Russia weakens the fear of US military power among the so-called "allies." "The weakening of fear of the United States" increase the political independence of the allies (Germany, France. Qatar, etc.) and, thereby, weaken the political capabilities of the United States.
    The latter are straining all their information capabilities to cast doubt on the fact of the presence of such weapons in Russia.
    1. 0
      23 May 2018 21: 57
      Well, it’s so clear that until you see, you won’t believe it? It’s our people who have grown up believing in fairy tales whatever you say, well, and there the people are simpler and especially do not believe in fairy tales ...
      1. 0
        23 May 2018 22: 16
        It’s our people who have grown up believing in fairy tales whatever you say, well, and there the people are simpler and especially do not believe in fairy tales ...

        I mean, CNBC works for our audience, trying to dissuade us from fairy tales that we believe in? If, yes, I strongly doubt it - this is work, first of all, for a Western audience, so that they would not want to crawl away from the hegemon, an attempt to keep countries such as Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, etc.
  13. 0
    24 May 2018 22: 41
    Yes, you only read, perhaps, probably, etc. What is this article about?
    Intelligence sources told CNBC that Vanguard was successfully tested twice in 2016, then “unsuccessfully” in 2017 once (supposedly a rocket crashed immediately after launch, “after a few seconds”) and will be tested with this summer again. Well, if the launch were “unsuccessful," then 15Y71 as part of the complex with ICBMs 15A35 would not be recommended for adoption. And this device does not fly since 2016, but approximately from 2010-2011. (in 2010, a "senior GS representative" told Interfax that the new equipment was successfully tested for the first time on ICBMs)

    And who told you what is recommended? And besides, in addition to the above, there were also February 26, 2015, and the first flight in the framework of the LCI was generally September 27, 2013
    ICBM 15A35 is actually withdrawn from service and why use an experimental missile to deploy a new BO. After all, the missile for this BO will have to be modernized, like the mines. Money nowhere to go?

    And before that, as it is believed, from 2004 the previous-generation apparatus flew, presumably having the index 15Y70.

    Who is considered? The first LCI of this product was carried out on February 28, 1990, the second on March 29, 1990 then on November 26, 1991, February 28, 1992, June 27, 2001 and only SIXTH LCI was held in 2004 ....
    Information from the author, like that of a foreign publication, is limping on both legs ....

    The same "sources" deceived the gullible journalists, telling them that the "Vanguard" will be in service "not earlier than 2020. But the President of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces insidiously intervened in the process just a few days later, as it should be for the" Kremlin tyrant " dusting the brains of journalists from the United States, saying that the “Vanguard” will be in service in the next, 2019.

    Yeah. will be adopted December 26, 2019. It will be officially adopted precisely then, in 2019. But the carrier, namely “SARMAT” in the form of a starting minimum, will be adopted at the beginning of 2020. And what will 2019 give then ???

    Quote: Fedor Egoist
    1. If we take a hypothetical situation in which the United States is armed with hypersonic delivery vehicles, such as the same Vanguard, but non-nuclear, then will the States be able to effectively work out (within the framework of the PGS) concept (put them inoperative before return launches) by these means on our silos? Which seem to be reasonably well protected even from low-altitude nuclear explosions? It seems that Sivkov read about a similar scenario.

    No. In-1 GBI is only a concept so far, funds for it individually, although they are being developed. the complex is still very far from complete. The number of missiles with a non-nuclear warhead cannot be significant. In talks about resolving non-nuclear missiles, it was either about 10, or about 20 missiles. Which should have been located not in the mines, but in open areas. But Russia in the negotiations did not "give the green light" to such options. Therefore, no, and again no. Yes, and 10-20 will not be able to hit most of the silos

    Quote: Fedor Egoist
    3. The START-3 treaty at the moment is clearly beneficial to the States for objective reasons. And if you write with a certain degree of certainty that after 2021. this agreement will not be renewed, which means you think that in this case it is the Russian Federation that will initiate its termination?

    The author gives out his thoughts for the truth. But what about the fact that only by about 2030 the United States will be able to produce new nuclear warheads. Prior to this, only by upgrading the old and dismantled warheads that were withdrawn from combat ... the chances are very good that if the new START-4 treaty is not concluded, it could well be prolonged .....
  14. 0
    25 May 2018 19: 48
    I have repeatedly and not only here talked about the insolvency of these projects. And for those who are too lazy to think, there is one recipe: the more "footcloth" they wrote, refuting the supposedly incompetent opinion, the greater the confirmation of this very opinion.
  15. 0
    26 May 2018 19: 06
    If you read information from sources who wish to remain anonymous, the probability is 99% that it’s just nonsense