Mine launcher and mobile ground complex: who wins?

104
At present, several hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles of various types are on duty at the Strategic Missile Forces. About half of this weapons is located in the mine launchers, and other products are transported to the launch position using mobile ground-based missile systems. New missiles of the latest models are approximately equally distributed between the launchers of both classes. However, this does not answer the obvious question: which way is better to base the ICBMs?

Excursion in history



First, you need to recall the history of domestic launchers for weapons of strategic missile forces. The first rockets, which appeared at the end of the forties, were proposed to be used with open installations located at a suitable position without the construction of large special objects. However, this installation did not provide any protection for the rocket, and therefore in the early fifties the development of more advanced systems with better protection was launched.


Protective device of the launch shaft for the P-36M rocket. Photo of the Strategic Missile Forces / pressa-rvsn.livejournal.com


By the mid-fifties, some new missiles "went underground" with the help of mine launchers. The reinforced concrete structure was not exposed to external influences, and moreover, it provided protection of the missile from missile and bomb strikes, including with the use of certain types of nuclear weapons. However, the mines did not prove to be the ideal solution to the problem, and therefore the designers started to create mobile ground-based missile systems.

The idea of ​​the PGRK was first implemented in the field of operational tactical missiles, but later found application in other classes. In the eighties, the first ICBMs appeared on such launchers. To date, mobile complexes have become the most important and integral element of the rocket forces, successfully complementing the stationary silos.

The current position

According to open sources, now the Russian Strategic Missile Forces are on duty on the order of 300 intercontinental missiles of various types, both in launch mines and on mobile complexes. In this case, we are talking about five types of missiles, two of which are not rigidly tied to the launcher class. Three other models can be used only with PGRK or only with silos.


Rocket R-36М without transport and launch container. Photo Rbase.new-factoria.ru


The oldest and smallest in the missile forces are ICBMs of the type UR-100НТТХ. Under such products, all 30 starting mines of one of the Strategic Missile Forces connections are now given. Slightly newer P-36М / М2 missiles are available in 46 units, and all of them are located only in the mine launchers. Duty is about 35 missiles RT-2PM "Topol", which are used with mobile launchers. In recent decades, almost 80 of the RT-2PM2 Topol-M missiles and about 110 PC-24 Yars products have been put on duty. It is the Topol-M and Yars missiles that can work with both mines and self-propelled machines.

Available data allow us to determine how many missiles are in the mines, and how many are transported by special vehicles. 30 UR-100N UTTH missiles, 46 Р-36М, 60 РТ-2ПМ2 and 20 РС-24 - total 156 units are on duty at silos. On mobile performance complexes, 35 of the RT-2PM, 18 Topol-M and 90 Yarsov missiles are a total of 143 products. Thus, the missiles are distributed between the silo and the PGRK almost equally, with a slight margin in favor of the former. The planned replacement of old missiles with new ones may lead to some changes in this ratio, but without any particular advantage for one or another class of installations.

Mines: Pros and Cons

The most widespread type of launchers in the Russian Strategic Missile Forces - both active and unused on duty - are mine. With them, first of all, old types of rockets are used, which cannot be exploited on the PGRK. However, new models are created taking into account the available material part and can also be applied to silos.

Mine launcher and mobile ground complex: who wins?
Internal equipment of silo for Р-36М. Photo Rbase.new-factoria.ru


The advantages of the silo launcher are obvious. An underground structure made of reinforced concrete of high strength provides a high level of missile protection and related equipment. For the guaranteed destruction of the rocket and the calculation of such an installation - depending on the design and characteristics of the latter - a high-power nuclear charge and a direct hit in the mine area are necessary. In other situations, the missile system can remain operational and take part in a retaliatory strike.

An indirect advantage of silos is less severe restrictions on the size and mass of the rocket. This allows the rocket to be equipped with larger and heavier as well as more powerful military equipment. It is well known that domestic missiles UR-100N UTTH and P-36М are equipped with a split head with several warheads, while Topol and Topol-M each carry one warhead. It is also possible to give the rocket a larger fuel supply and thereby improve its flight data.

It should be noted that the main advantage of the launch shaft is associated with its main drawback. The launch complex is in one place, and the probable enemy knows his coordinates in advance. As a result, it can deliver the first blow against the silo with more powerful and long-range missiles. To solve this problem, it is necessary to strengthen the protection of the mine in one way or another.


Р-36М at the moment of start. Photo Rbase.new-factoria.ru


The simplest option to improve protection is to use more powerful building structures, which, incidentally, has a negative impact on the complexity and cost of construction. An alternative solution - active protection complexes. As early as the eighties, the development of special anti-missile systems for the timely interception of the enemy’s military units began in our country. KAZ had to shoot down threatening objects and thereby ensure a safe launch from the silo. In the late nineties, the domestic project of the Mozyr complex was stopped, but several years ago new research in this area started.

Pros and cons of mobility

Almost half of the Russian ICBMs are currently operated on mobile ground-based missile systems. Obviously, such a technique, like stationary mines, has both advantages and disadvantages. At the same time, the combination of positive and negative features is such that the command of the Strategic Missile Forces considered it necessary to operate two types of equipment simultaneously.


Mine head and missile UR-100H UTTH. Photo Rbase.new-factoria.ru


The main advantage of the PGRK is its mobility. Self-propelled launcher, command and control vehicles during combat duty do not remain in place. They constantly move between the base, equipped positions and defenses. This, at a minimum, makes it difficult to determine the current location of the complex and, therefore, prevents the enemy from organizing the first disarming strike. Naturally, the prepared positions may be known to the enemy in advance, but before the attack he will have to figure out which of them have real targets.

However, mobility leads to certain problems, for getting rid of which certain measures are necessary. PGRK on duty may be ambushed by saboteurs. When attacking a complex, the enemy uses small arms or explosive devices. However, in this case, the maintenance of the complex on duty includes several different machines for different purposes. First of all, launchers are accompanied by armored personnel carriers and escort soldiers. If necessary, they must take the fight and repel the attack.

Especially for the Strategic Missile Forces were created so-called. remote clearance machine and anti-sabotage combat vehicle. This technique is capable of reconnaissance, timely find the enemy or explosive devices, as well as destroy detected threats. In addition, adopted so-called. engineering and disguise machine. This sample is capable of leaving false traces of the PGRK column, misleading the enemy’s reconnaissance.


Download rocket RT-2PM2 Topol-M in silo. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation


A significant drawback of the PGRK is the restrictions on the carrying capacity, leading to a reduction in combat performance. Modern Topol and Topol-M missiles have a starting weight of less than 50 t due to the characteristics of the chassis. It is for this reason that they could not get a split head and carry one charge each. However, in the new project “Yars” this problem is solved, and the rocket is equipped with several warheads.

Development prospects

Currently, the Russian defense industry is launching new PC-24 missiles and transferring them to the Strategic Missile Forces to be put on duty or sent to arsenals. Depending on the current needs of the troops, the Yars rocket may be loaded into the silo or installed on the PGRK. Like the older Topol-M missile, the new PC-24 is made universal in basing. This fact may hint at the further development of the Strategic Missile Forces and their weapons.


PGRK Topol on the march. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation


Apparently, the relatively lightweight ICBMs of existing and prospective types will be used in the foreseeable future together with the PGRK and the silo silo. Due to this, it will be possible to realize all the main advantages of the launchers of two types while reducing the negative impact of existing disadvantages. In other words, some missiles will be able to be protected by reinforced concrete structures, but they will be at risk of a first strike, while others will escape observation, although they will require the assistance of a number of special machines.

The situation is different in the field of heavy ICBMs. In the foreseeable future, the Strategic Missile Forces plans to complete the operation of the old UR-100N UTTH and P-36M rockets, which, for obvious reasons, can only work with launch shafts. The outdated missiles will be replaced by a new PC-28 “Sarmat” product, which also belongs to the heavy class. Before its adoption, a certain number of available silos will have to be repaired and upgraded. Thus, the rocket troops will receive new weapons, but they will not have to spend time and money on building the required facilities from scratch.


Mobile soil complex and BTR escort. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation


In all likelihood, in the medium term, the RS-24 "Yars" and RS-28 "Sarmat" missile systems will form the basis of the armaments of the Strategic Missile Forces of Russia. Products of the Topol family will have the same position as Р-36М or УР-100НТТТХ currently. They will still remain in service, but their number and role should be gradually reduced.

It is not known how modern and prospective rockets will be distributed between the PGRK and the silo silo in the future. Obvious is the fact that the heavy "Sarmatians" can be on duty only in the mines. Part of the lighter Yarsov will remain in the silo, while the others will continue to be used together with self-propelled launchers. It is possible that the ratio of the number of mines and mobile complexes will remain at the current level, although changes are possible.

Which is better?

Comparing the different ways of basing and operating intercontinental ballistic missiles, it is difficult not to ask the expected question: which one is better? But in this formulation, this question is not entirely correct. As in the case of other weapons and military equipment, the correct question is different: which way is better for the tasks assigned? The answer is obvious. Both the silo launcher and the mobile soil complex, at least at the concept level, meet the requirements set for them and correspond to the tasks performed.


Start "Topol" with a mobile launcher. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation


Moreover, the joint operation of the launchers of the two classes provides certain advantages. Due to it, in practice it is possible to realize the advantages of both systems, as well as partially get rid of their characteristic minuses. Also, we should not forget about the ongoing updating of the material part of the rocket forces. It is planned to modernize part of the existing silos, and new PGRK variants are being developed. It is to be expected that new and improved complexes will compare favorably with their predecessors.

In the context of different ways of basing an ICBM, the question “what is better?” Does not make much sense, but you can also find an acceptable answer for it. Most likely, it is worth answering "both that, and another". Mine launchers and mobile ground systems for many years of operation have had time to demonstrate their capabilities and have proven themselves. In addition, a successful structure of rocket forces, based on both types of launchers, has now been formed. Probably, such a structure will be able to change significantly only in the event of the appearance of fundamentally new ground launchers.

On the materials of the sites:
http://mil.ru/
http://tass.ru/
http://ria.ru/
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/
http://russianforces.org/
http://russianarms.ru/
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

104 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    29 July 2018 05: 57
    A very interesting article ... And probably I will not be mistaken ... The main conclusion ... It is necessary to have both ... And another ...
    1. +15
      29 July 2018 06: 36
      And also BZHDRK and nuclear submarines
      1. +4
        29 July 2018 11: 10
        And also Skiff. At the bottom of lakes and seas. Combines high protection with a layer of water several hundred meters from the first impact with mobility - the ability to relocate to another point of occurrence. It is impossible to give a high-precision BB ICB Trident a flight mission to defeat Skif, because location coordinates are unknown.
        1. +1
          29 July 2018 12: 27
          What do you dislike about Scythian? Well, drowned the layout, well, to hell with it. But no one drowned the battle Skiff.
      2. 0
        29 July 2018 16: 30
        Quote: amateur2
        And also BZHDRK and nuclear submarines

        and air component
    2. 0
      29 July 2018 09: 15
      And the missile carriers.
      1. +2
        29 July 2018 10: 05
        If you mean planes - then a dead number. They simply will not be allowed to fly up to the launch areas. So investing in the TU-160 is pointless for a war with the United States. Syria is good
        1. +3
          29 July 2018 10: 14
          what nonsense have we already created strategic cruise missiles with a launch range of 5000 km (for Tu-95 Tu 160 and Tu-22m3) you can shy from Kamchatka across the USA or take a new BZ across China and a new (while the Americans airbase response a blow will not be destroyed)
          1. KCA
            +2
            29 July 2018 14: 54
            5500 km declared range for the X-102, and who knows exactly how much they really can fly, 7000,10 000 km, the one who knows, he will not tell, in general the ICB "Rainbow" still claims that there are no such missiles at all does not give data
            1. -1
              29 July 2018 20: 08
              claim because of secrecy, but even Putin somehow let slip at a briefing that a long time ago with a range of 4500 km cr
        2. +1
          29 July 2018 12: 28
          With a missile launch range of 5000 km, you don’t even have to fly to America.
          1. +2
            29 July 2018 19: 27
            With the Petrel, you don’t even have to take off.
  2. +4
    29 July 2018 06: 43
    Purely statistical material. About the advantages of different types of complexes said for the average man, but it is good. Why know the details of the design of the mine for an ICBM, if these details are secret, and they basically determine the advantage of the mine over the soil complex. Further I don’t want to develop the theme, for the reason for this has already been said. But the author still thanks for the statistics.
  3. +3
    29 July 2018 07: 31
    Mines are better of course, but not like the Americans do when Yeltsin concluded the strategic offensive arms and we gave them the coordinates of all their mines, this is how the Chinese mines make thicker mountains that can withstand a nuclear strike + no one knows exactly where, that is, without exact coordinates will you not bombard every square kilometer of Tibet with nuclear missiles in order to “find” the mines? In addition, another advantage of the mine is that you push any heavy missile there (like our Voivode SS-18 with 10 warheads and 1000 false targets) that you can’t drag on mobile tractor (on Yars more You won’t place 4 warheads, and then the range will be lower than that of Voivode - if the number of warheads can be reduced, for example, you can "pull" one 20 megaton warhead by 16 km) and you don’t put such a monster in the submarine, so definitely the mines in uninhabited areas are Novaya Zemlya , Kamchatka, Chukotka, we will create Sarmat missile missile bases and we will be happy (it would also be desirable if the launch codes were in the safe on the control panel in the base control bunker, otherwise the Americans I would stir up destroying, for example, a nuclear suitcase together with our president’s plane before the attack and attacking the headquarters of the Strategic Missile Forces in order to gain time for the Tomahawks (without the headquarters, how to send codes to submarines and other parts of the Strategic Missile Forces? there are love alternatives, but Ragozin was not in vain talking about the possibility of the Americans proactively destroying most of our potential, and the rest will be shot down by missile defense (that’s why they moved with Poseidons and other new things, our leadership is afraid knowing better than us where there are weak links )
    1. +6
      29 July 2018 08: 01
      Quote: nikoliski
      Mines are better of course, but not like the way we do with the Americans, when Yeltsin concluded START and we informed them the coordinates of all our mines

      Like the Americans.
      Quote: nikoliski
      this is how the Chinese mines make thicker mountains that can withstand a nuclear strike

      And in our country there are no mountains? And it makes sense, if it was possible to cover not Moscow with missile defense, but the ICBM division with silos, as the Americans did.
      Quote: nikoliski
      no one knows exactly where, that is, without exact coordinates you will not bombard every square kilometer of Tibet with nuclear missiles in order to “find” mines?

      It is impossible to completely hide such complex structures as silos, because too many processes accompany the life of any unit. Reconnaissance is vigilant and it is enough to establish the proposed deployment area in order to open up the entire system.
      1. +3
        29 July 2018 12: 50
        Quote: Puncher
        It is impossible to completely hide such complex structures as silos, because too many processes accompany the life of any unit. Reconnaissance is vigilant and it is enough to establish the proposed deployment area in order to open up the entire system.

        You rightly noticed this ... Missile mines have been "digging" since 60: 1.when satellite reconnaissance equipment was just beginning to develop ... 2.when the KVO ICBMs were measured in kilometers ... In the "era" of developed reconnaissance satellite systems to ensure covert mine placement ICBM is a huge problem! Yes, and those who want to earn 30 pieces of silver in dollar terms can be found ... and just talkers have always had enough ... High-precision nuclear weapons have appeared. Nevertheless, the missile silos did not lose their significance, provided they were equipped with active self-defense equipment (Mozyr). The situation will become more complicated if the Americans put nuclear weapons into space. (Mine-based areas of ICBMs will be under constant surveillance already from space ... ) It is possible that the issue of covering missile areas with C-500 complexes with the strengthening of the anti-ballistic component of the complexes will be decided ..
        1. +3
          29 July 2018 14: 54
          A silo launcher can only be destroyed with nuclear weapons. The mines of the Strategic Missile Forces regiment are spaced so that two mines cannot be destroyed by a single nuclear explosion. A mobile installation can be destroyed from outer space with conventional weapons.


          The radius of action of "Poplar" and modifications is 10 t.km. The United States can only be obtained from the European part of the Russian Federation. The European missile defense system makes life difficult for us. You can still shoot from Eastern Siberia and the Far East, but there are no roads. The effect of stealth is lost.

          Topol has only 3 warheads. Opportunities to overcome missile defense are limited.

          Only a solid propellant rocket can be installed on a mobile complex. And with the development of solid fuels, we are very far behind the United States. Advanced Soviet developments remained in Ukraine.

          The new Sarmat mine rocket will be liquid-fuel, have 10 warheads plus a bunch of tricks and get to the United States from anywhere in the world along a flat path.
          1. +2
            29 July 2018 17: 01
            ism_ek:
            ... And with the development of solid fuels, we are very far behind the US

            An interesting statement. It turns out that Iskander and Dagger are liquid? Or is there a steeper stellar-striped dagger in the States, since we are lagging behind? Actually, they completely confused me. But still in the statement ism_ek has its own meaning - to confuse the enemy, to put on the wrong path of development of foreign daggers. Let them believe that we are lagging behind.
          2. 0
            29 July 2018 19: 37
            Why are you so smart, I finished the CDS on the perimeter and I know more than you carry this dregs
    2. 0
      29 July 2018 08: 41
      Quote: nikoliski
      the Chinese make mines in the thickness of the mountains that can withstand a nuclear strike + no one knows exactly where, that is, without exact coordinates

      ==========
      Given the capabilities of modern space exploration, to carry out such a grandiose construction is UNMISSIBLE - ????? I doubt however request
      Moreover, not only the "Americans" are watching their "body movements, but also our keep an eye on.....
      1. 0
        29 July 2018 09: 20
        The approximate area of ​​one such base is known, and it became known after the earthquake, the vaults of caves and underground labyrinths failed and the Americans discovered a whole underground city from the satellite (by the way they dug it like moles and no one knew that there was anything at all, the Chinese annually they produce almost 3 billion tons of cement for construction (this is more than the USA for the entire 20th century) of such bridges like the Crimean in China in a hundred each, so no one will have time to observe the 9 million square kilometers of the country if work begins underground in one location, and come to the surface 40 kilometers away.
        1. +2
          29 July 2018 10: 35
          Quote: nikoliski
          nobody will have time to observe the 9 million square kilometers of the country

          =========
          And why watch all 9,5 million square kilometers of China ??? It is clear that on the densely populated and densely built-up plain and coastal areas - the Chinese mine PU construction - will not !!! The collateral damage in case of an attack will be too large !!!
          But the mountainous regions of Gtmalayev - yes - IT IS MOST !!! That's just the places there are deaf, there are few roads, and ANY "movement" will be oh how noticeable !!!
          And as for the underground construction - here, too, not everything is so smooth ... Modern IR sensors allow you to detect moves at sufficiently great depths !! No, of course, something little can still be secretly "fiddled", but - this is just a LITTLE .....
          You think WHY in due time the USSR and the USA (!!!) exchanged data on rocket mines ??? Well, Brokeback, suppose we could merge "everything and everything", but Reagan ??? And the answer is simple - this information has long been "open secret" !!!! hi
      2. 0
        29 July 2018 11: 01
        do not overestimate reconnaissance from the satellite (it’s not without reason that they ask for an open sky for reconnaissance aircraft) because, say, only 30% of poplar Ms that went “on a flight” through the taiga are detected from the satellite, and if the Soviet project were to be closed because of lack of money (carry in trucks refrigerators on the Maza chassis along a conventional highway with a missile with a warhead, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to track in the current stream of PU trucks disguised as ordinary;
        1. +2
          29 July 2018 11: 22
          Quote: nikoliski
          carry a missile with a warhead in the refrigerated trucks on the Maza chassis along the usual highway

          Without security - escort - risky to the extreme.
          Security - unmasks right there.
          And he was definitely, this "project"?
          1. -1
            29 July 2018 20: 12
            There was a transfer and these cars showed a docking shot, and as for the security, there’s 3-4 trucks (long-distance truck driving so often) in one rocket (soft mortar launch) in other security guards trucks, outwardly ordinary trucks, the launcher’s self-destruction system in case of real danger of capture PU
            1. 0
              29 July 2018 20: 16
              Quote: nikoliski
              nikoliski

              Listen ... please drop my brains out. And to others too.
              You’re already laughing, haven’t you noticed? Or do you like it that way?
              They told you many times that what you wrote was a snowstorm, and they explained why.
              Read, listen, learn the materiel, finally ...
              And stop making the brains already, I have to work tomorrow !!
              1. +1
                29 July 2018 20: 48
                Judging by the anger, someone offended you?)
        2. ZVO
          +6
          29 July 2018 13: 03
          Quote: nikoliski
          do not overestimate reconnaissance from the satellite (it’s not without reason that they ask for an open sky for reconnaissance aircraft) because, say, only 30% of poplar Ms that went “on a flight” through the taiga are detected from the satellite, and if the Soviet project were to be closed because of lack of money (carry in trucks refrigerators on the Maza chassis along a conventional highway with a missile with a warhead, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to track in the current stream of PU trucks disguised as ordinary;

          Do not understand the principles of life? Do not teach others to live!
          This is me to the fact that:
          There are road restrictions on the mass dimensions of goods. Especially by weight. Traffic signs on axle load seen? Do you see signs in front of posts and bridges? I think yes. Have you ever seen a trawl for transporting a 40-ton bulldozer? How many axles are there? How many wheels? Imperceptibly and impossible? Oh well...
          About Security and Escort?
          Are service points specialized?
          Forgot? Or didn’t you even think about it?
          About seismic sensors that can accommodate both saboteurs and agents at a distance of up to 100 meters. And sensors of this type with a two-sided SX-satellite channel are quite inexpensive and cost less than $ 100 and look like stones or sticks.
          Do not try to repeat nonsense.
          Learn to think with your head.
          1. -1
            29 July 2018 20: 16
            We have Fords tonars 60 tons, modern technologies will make it possible to make rockets of small mass (about 20 tons). Further, about security, by launching 10 real vehicles, you can make hundreds of similar trucks to distract attention with special forces inside, let them "capture" and "watch", in addition I don’t understand what the capture of PU will give without start codes received from the CP.
            1. 0
              29 July 2018 20: 56
              Quote: nikoliski
              besides, I don’t understand what the capture of the control unit will be without the launch codes received from the CP

              Capture of launchers means the impossibility of their use for their intended purpose, and accordingly, the reciprocal strike is covered with a copper basin. Checkmate.
    3. +2
      29 July 2018 09: 21
      The Perimeter system automatically launches missiles if there is no communication with the command center and the sensor system reports an enemy nuclear attack.

      Command missiles are launched from the Leningrad Region to the Far East, which transmit the remaining missiles a launch signal. I suspect that perimeter missiles are also launched from the Far East towards Peter.
      1. -1
        29 July 2018 09: 34
        Here is the hope for them (it was not for nothing that they were invented fearing a preemptive strike)
  4. +4
    29 July 2018 07: 49
    In the context of different ways of basing ICBMs, the question “what is better?” doesn't make much sense

    I do not agree. The meaning appears when considering the concept of their application. If we strike the first blow and for this purpose the Strategic Missile Forces were created, then PGRK are needed, because they are cheaper than silos and can be deployed in large numbers in a short time. It is difficult to increase the number of silos because the construction of only one division will cost as a small city.
    If we expect a strike from the enemy and the Strategic Missile Forces task to strike back, then in the realities of the 21st century PGRK is a waste of money. The location of all parts of the PGRK is known to the enemy, the movement is tracked from space, and the combat stability of the combat vehicle is low, and an air nuclear explosion is enough to at least render it unusable.
    For example, here in Novosibirsk everyone who is interested in the topic has long known where rocket launchers are in Pashino, and on satellite maps you can clearly see the location and the road in the forest along which they move.
    1. 0
      29 July 2018 09: 28
      While bourgeois missiles fly to Novosibirsk, PGRK commanders will already receive an order to launch.

      What arrives, destroys only empty launchers with crews that have already fulfilled their duty.

      But to the bourgeois - it doesn’t seem enough.
      1. +3
        29 July 2018 09: 32
        While bourgeois missiles fly to Novosibirsk, PGRK commanders will already receive an order to launch.
        For 10 minutes, but until they identify the target, until they give their orders with a squeaky heart, the cars will be expelled and they will all fly to the fighting position ...
      2. +2
        29 July 2018 12: 49
        Quote: Horse, lyudovѣd and soulѣlyub
        What arrives, destroys only empty launchers with crews that have already fulfilled their duty.

        The time between receiving an order to launch and starting an ICBM at a silo and a PGRC is different. An ICBM in a silo is ready to take off immediately, while Poplar is in the base in a reinforced-concrete hangar with a sliding roof. That is, you need to remove the lid, lift the container with the rocket and launch. And then every second is precious. Not for nothing, the Voivode’s developers came up with missile protection at the launch site of the flight, they realized that the rocket would have to take off through a nuclear explosion.
    2. 0
      29 July 2018 15: 07
      Quote: Puncher
      the construction of only one division will cost as a small city.

      Under the USSR, a team of workers dug up a rocket mine manually in a month. Further, installation required only a powerful crane. Everything was going as a constructor.
    3. +2
      29 July 2018 18: 04
      Do not worry, they study in the forest and NOT more than that, but if ...
      Further, please understand correctly, you can write a lot, but not, the disclosure is called (((a lot of things have been invented for a long time)
      PGRK are needed, as well as silos, SSBNs too, well, which SSBNs, but the BZHRK slowed down, the reason is not known ...
  5. +1
    29 July 2018 08: 28
    Quote: nikoliski
    so unambiguously mines in the uninhabited areas-Novaya Zemlya, Kamchatka, Chukotka, create missile bases for Sarmat missiles and we will be happy

    Can you even imagine the level of costs? Moreover, there are many who want to “hand over” the coordinates of these mines for iPhones.
    I think that only the USSR could afford to mass build missile bases for a guaranteed response to the aggressor.
    1. 0
      29 July 2018 09: 24
      In the USSR, Zeki did this and it would not hurt us to adopt the practice — let’s say the killers choose the shooting or 10 years of digging mines in Novaya Zemlya, by the way why exactly Novaya Zemlya, a huge island withstood the most powerful mother in the world, Kuzkin’s, so let them try another, and peaceful the population, as we say in Dombarovsky, is not there, in addition, you can attack the United States from there, not only through the Arctic but also through the Atlantic.
      1. 0
        29 July 2018 12: 53
        Quote: nikoliski
        let’s tell the killers the choice of shooting or 10 years of digging mines on Novaya Zemlya

        Not only to killers, but first of all to Navalny’s hamsters and other swampy rallies, as well as to malicious loan defaulters. And on the 282nd there.
      2. ZVO
        +8
        29 July 2018 13: 10
        Quote: nikoliski
        In the USSR, Zeki did this and it would not hurt us to adopt the practice — let’s say the killers choose the shooting or 10 years of digging mines in Novaya Zemlya, by the way why exactly Novaya Zemlya, a huge island withstood the most powerful mother in the world, Kuzkin’s, so let them try another, and peaceful the population, as we say in Dombarovsky, is not there, in addition, you can attack the United States from there, not only through the Arctic but also through the Atlantic.

        You continue to carry nonsense
        The location of PU in the center of the country, i.e. equidistant from maritime borders- gives valuable time to prepare a retaliatory strike.
        If PUs are located in Kamchatka, Chukotka, Novaya Zemlya, then in the event of a strike against them, they will be destroyed within 5-7 minutes. And time for their shooting - will not be in principle.
        Council.
        Stop sweating nonsense. Learn to think with your head (2 times already offer).
        Well, or take as an example the Scarecrow from a fairy tale about Ally and Oorfene Jus. Remember what he dreamed about. You need the same thing.
        1. -1
          1 August 2018 05: 50
          Americans are going to place nuclear weapons in space (satellites with small-sized nuclear warheads) so when they do (and Trump and Congress approved hundreds of billions of dollars worth of such strategic upgrades) it will not matter in the center of the country a mine (satellites fly over and over Siberia, too) or on the outskirts, firstly, secondly, the base in Kamchatka means minimal population loss when hitting it (unlike Tatishchev, for example) secondly, if we strike first, it makes the flight time minimal In contrast to rockets fired from the center of the country.
  6. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      29 July 2018 09: 00
      Do not place, afraid
      1. +4
        29 July 2018 09: 24
        Do not place, afraid
        What?
        1. 0
          29 July 2018 12: 26
          What difference does it make? The main thing is afraid. They are already afraid.
          1. +3
            29 July 2018 12: 50
            Quote: Cannonball
            What difference does it make? The main thing is afraid. They are already afraid.

            Did Trump tell you? What makes you think that someone in the world is afraid of Russia?
            1. 0
              29 July 2018 15: 37
              Yes, the whole world is afraid of Russia. For many hundreds of years.
          2. ZVO
            0
            29 July 2018 13: 12
            Quote: Cannonball
            What difference does it make? The main thing is afraid. They are already afraid.

            Feerrichsssskyyyy ....
            1. -1
              29 July 2018 15: 40
              Panic fear, to insanity and schizophrenia.
  7. +1
    29 July 2018 09: 01
    Correctly noticed, you need to have everything. Mine missiles are still a retaliatory strike weapon. A modified mine of the same Voivode can be destroyed only by direct hit. Primers are more likely an attack weapon.
    1. 0
      29 July 2018 10: 10
      Not necessarily a direct hit. Close enough at a distance of tens or hundreds of meters, depending on the power of the charge. Moreover, the mine itself can and will stand, but it can be skewed vertically due to the close location of the explosion funnel, the shaft cover is jammed and other troubles.
      1. +1
        29 July 2018 15: 41
        There are few hundred meters. And dozens are almost a direct hit.
      2. KCA
        +8
        29 July 2018 15: 53
        A missile in a silo hangs like a pendulum, an amazing skew of the mine, even if it does take place, will not be able to prevent the rocket from leaving the mine, the silo cover is generally a separate song, in the case of its skew, it is shot off by powder charges, a shnyag weighing a hundred tons flies away like a beer bottle cap
      3. +3
        29 July 2018 15: 54
        Do you know how the mine works? and what kind of load does the "glass" withstand?
        A nuclear explosion in a hundred meters not every ship will sink to the bottom, but here an object buried, hardened to complete disgrace ...
        1. 0
          29 July 2018 18: 29
          destruction of our 156 silos requires 4 BB = 624 BB
          destruction of 150 PGRK requires a minimum of 6 BB = 900 BB
          that today for the United States is 100% of the nuclear arsenal, total 1558 BB
      4. -1
        1 August 2018 05: 52
        Trident's quo is about 130 meters, it is believed that with a 450 kiloton warhead such a miss (up to 130 meters) will still dig a funnel at the mine site.
  8. +6
    29 July 2018 09: 51
    Quote: nikoliski
    Today, 09: 24
    In the USSR, Zeki did it.

    In the USSR, strategic objects were built by the construction battalion - GUSS.
    1. -1
      1 August 2018 05: 54
      But in vain, Beria could "have" one after digging up a secret bunker, and soldiers in civilian life would tell wink
  9. +2
    29 July 2018 10: 02
    What's better? Submarines. No wonder the United States gives them such attention
    1. 0
      29 July 2018 10: 16
      no one disputes a good thing and only a few countries in the world build them with their own ICBM-USA Russia China and France (Great Britain could not do ICBMs for underwater launch, put an American trident on boats)
  10. mvg
    0
    29 July 2018 10: 04
    Not like the author. Article plus.
  11. +1
    29 July 2018 11: 14
    PGRK - a solution for rogues such as North Korea and Israel laughing

    An exception is ICBMs and RSDs in the form factor of a large-tonnage container on a trailer moving along public roads.
    1. 0
      29 July 2018 11: 47
      Quote: Operator
      An exception is ICBMs and RSDs in the form factor of a large-tonnage container on a trailer moving along public roads.

      You will present the dimensions of a conventional container and the sizes of existing missiles. Yes, and you will have to build a road so that there is no 8t per axis.

      The most normal thing for you with a developed railway infrastructure is BZHDK and mines with suitable railway tracks, for a change. This is for land, as well as optimal it is sea based.
      1. 0
        29 July 2018 11: 51
        Google MGM-134 Midgetman and 15П159 Courier.

        The train BZHDK once copied from space.
        1. 0
          29 July 2018 11: 56
          Quote: Operator
          Google MGM-134 Midgetman and 15П159 Courier.

          According to Google, the courier, alas, is not there, and that mine is, alas, for that size and weight, that’s it.
          1. 0
            29 July 2018 12: 11
            ICBM F-22 “Swirl”
            http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-444.html
            1. 0
              29 July 2018 12: 18
              Quote: Operator
              http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-444.html

              I read, yes, it’s all in projects, well, one FIG will have to build roads anyway, it’s not known how much money or a mine or km of motorway, one fig you can’t send such a car without armed escort, although a group of people at frets can provide. laughing Awesome problems can be in terms of secrecy.
              1. 0
                29 July 2018 12: 34
                ICBM "Swirl" remained in the project for only one reason - the Americans, well, really asked for it when preparing the treaty on SALT.

                Plus, at any time in the composition of the solid fuel “Swirls” it was possible to replace ammonium perchlorate and aluminum with the domestic invention of ammonium dinitramide (spent on the third stage of the P-23 UTX “Molodets”), after which the range of the F-22 would be equal to the range of the “Governor” .
                1. +1
                  29 July 2018 12: 42
                  Quote: Operator
                  Plus, at any time in the composition of the solid fuel “Swirls” it was possible to replace ammonium perchlorate and aluminum with the domestic invention of ammonium dinitramide (spent on the third stage of the P-23 UTX “Molodets”), after which the range of the F-22 would be equal to the range of the “Governor” .

                  You look at the topic, I’m just asking my elder brother and I can ask at the table, although he finished 3 faculty in Perm, his opinion is shift shafts, BZHRDK and More.

                  Whatever the satellites would calculate, there is Porubishchik-IL-22, the one that will blind the satellites for a while. Although Old wrote, the loafers of one fig will not break away from the pursuit, the radius of 500 km is 8 hours, the plane is 6 hours without additional corrections. So wheel makers are, as written from the top for an attack, a preemptive strike.
                  1. 0
                    29 July 2018 15: 18
                    At the same time, several tens of thousands of container trailers and wagons of the same length are on Russian roads - the United States, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan and Israel taken together stupidly do not have enough warheads to simultaneously destroy all potential launchers with small-sized ICBMs like Midgetman or "A string".
                    1. +1
                      29 July 2018 15: 21
                      Quote: Operator
                      At the same time, several tens of thousands of container trailers and wagons of the same length are on Russian roads - the United States, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan and Israel are stupidly lacking warheads to simultaneously destroy all potential launchers with small-sized ICBMs such as Midgetman or Vernitsa "

                      Read over smart koment from ZVO, or jam all communication with the Internet regarding the passage of the letter load, here you also need protection.
                      1. 0
                        29 July 2018 16: 29
                        I’ll look for scrap in the scrap that you have in mind, since all comments are clever at ZVO.

                        The protection of container launchers on the road - several minivans with hidden reservation, the launch command - from the low-frequency transmitter "Zeus" on the Kola Peninsula (using regenerative single-tube receivers of the 20 model of the last century).
          2. 0
            29 July 2018 12: 52
            Quote: marshes
            According to Google, the courier, alas, is not there, and that mine is, alas, for that size and weight, that’s it.

            Midgetman was quite compact.
            1. 0
              29 July 2018 12: 58
              Quote: Puncher
              Midgetman was quite compact.

              But they don’t drive along the tracks, they simply transfer them from the mine to the railway mine, although Stary wrote that it was forbidden by contracts.
              Therefore, they, the meritorious leaders of the free world, built a triad, Most of all on aviation, there are tactics, then the sea, and 25 percent of the land is an answer, although the remaining 75 can be said to be an attack weapon.
  12. +1
    29 July 2018 11: 51
    The brother served in the Strategic Missile Forces at one time, he envied the moles, went into the database for three weeks, sealed what he said, and then a month of cooling. And on wheels, the exercises of leaving and entering the caponier, maybe on the route, the time was not right, come out. Or you get frost-bitten or you pick up mushrooms, but the mosquito constantly.
  13. 0
    29 July 2018 12: 47
    The location of the silos is easy to cover missile defense with special warheads. “Partners” are not required to be informed.
  14. 0
    29 July 2018 13: 12
    Why all this fuss with missiles?
    It is possible, for example, under the cover of the construction of a metro in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, to begin tunneling under the Bering Sea in the USA and then a network of tunnels under the entire territory of mattress covers. Further, super-powerful thermonuclear charges are laid under them under all key objects. At the right time, they are undermined by a signal on the cable. Instantly, without any flying time, and no missile defense will help.
    1. +2
      29 July 2018 13: 19
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      It is possible, for example, under the cover of the construction of a metro in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, to begin tunneling under the Bering Sea in the USA and then a network of tunnels under the entire territory of mattress covers.

      Is your crop there? Isn’t it yet ours in the Shui valley, the spring was long laughing
      1. 0
        29 July 2018 13: 53
        First, not in Shuyskaya, but in Chuyskaya.
        Secondly, we grow our own no worse.
        Thirdly, I smoked the day before yesterday, now I’m writing on the release.
        1. +1
          29 July 2018 13: 59
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          First, not in Shuyskaya, but in Chuyskaya.

          Why did she become Chuyskaya, from the Uzbeks?

          Quote: Narak-zempo
          Secondly, we grow our own no worse.

          We don’t grow our own, just a favorite place of Afghan starlings, and they bring turkey seeds in their feces. laughing

          Quote: Narak-zempo
          Thirdly, I smoked the day before yesterday, now I’m writing on the release.

          That strongly pressed on havchik?
          Although unique, before the events in Kazakhstan your driver was attracted, brought to Kazakhstan. laughing
          1. +1
            29 July 2018 14: 24
            Quote: marshes
            That strongly pressed on havchik?

            Crushed.
            And after havchik a rowing hour and a half.
            1. 0
              29 July 2018 14: 30
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              And after havchik a rowing hour and a half.

              If my dyatka was in Kharkov, he agreed at one time. Maybe he died a lot from cancer, he dried up to 45 kg and was 75. I think from exhaustion, I could overcome it.
  15. 0
    29 July 2018 15: 26
    Slightly newer R-36M / M2 missiles are available in the amount of 46 units,
    Author, Governor on alert 26 units. This amount was relevant half a year ago. Now it may be less.
  16. +1
    29 July 2018 18: 06
    However, in this case, the complex’s escort on duty includes several different machines for various purposes. First of all, launchers are accompanied by armored personnel carriers and guards. If necessary, they must accept the battle and repulse the attack.

    The range of modern ATGM systems is more than 10 km. And the launcher is huge and slow. The armored personnel carrier will greatly help her with such an attack. Again, a handful of home-made drones gnawed twice at the Tartus air defense base, and if not self-made drones, somewhere on the route? Again, an armored personnel carrier will swell one?
  17. +6
    29 July 2018 21: 21
    Quote: nikoliski
    Mines are better of course, but not like the way we do with the Americans, when Yeltsin concluded START and we informed them the coordinates of all our mines

    Actually, the coordinates of the silos were mutually transferred by us and the Americans back under the OSV-2 agreement, which was signed by Leonid Brezhnev. Then there was a ban on remaking mines of light ICBMs into heavy ones. And the ban on camouflage mines during their modernization

    Quote: nikoliski
    this is how the Chinese mines make thicker mountains that can withstand a nuclear strike + no one knows exactly where, that is, without exact coordinates you will not bombard every square kilometer of Tibet with nuclear missiles to “find” the mines?

    In fact, the Chinese in the mountains do not make mines, but adits to shelter mobile and partially mobile complexes. And not in Tibet. The network has a lot of materials on strategic missile forces of the PRC, which indicate not only the numbers of missile brigades, but also their locations. In addition, it’s impossible to build even a shelter for the shelter without it being detected by satellite reconnaissance

    Quote: nikoliski
    In addition, another advantage of the mine is that you push any heavy missile there (like our Voivode SS-18 with 10 warheads and 1000 false targets) that you can’t drag on any mobile tractor

    What, so 1000 false goals? Inflatable Mail Balls? As for the tractor. If there was a solution, they would. Moreover, there was a project and PGRK "Tselina-2" with a carrying capacity of 150 to 220 tons. Monster - but what to do. Made and tested

    Quote: nikoliski
    you can’t put more than 4 warheads on Yars and then the range will be lower than that of Voivode, if the number of warheads can be reduced, for example, "pull" one 20 megaton warhead by 16 km)

    Damn, and the factories of the fraudsters are full. Nadia, specially for the arrival of the president, a breeding stage platform with 6 seats for warheads was made. Fraudsters, damn it. And on the "Governor" never a 20 Mt warhead was deployed. experienced - yes, but not deployed.

    Quote: nikoliski
    and you don’t put such a monster in a submarine, so it’s unambiguous that mines in uninhabited areas — Novaya Zemlya, Kamchatka, Chukotka — create Sarmat missile bases and we will be happy

    Why shove everything on the boat? There were few monsters of the 941 project with an almost 100-ton rocket ??

    Yeah. especially happiness will be to those fighters from Spetsstroy, who will be nibbled by permafrost and granite in Novaya Zemlya, Kamchatka and Chukotka. And most importantly, happiness will be for those who operate these complexes in snowstorms and at a temperature of minus 40. Happiness will come out of your ears. After all, we have billions of extra money to build new mines ...

    Quote: ism_ek
    A silo launcher can only be destroyed with nuclear weapons.

    Not just nuclear weapons. There have been studies and even published material. The mine’s protective structure (roof) can be hit with two 2-ton caliber ammunition. The whole problem is just putting these 2 bombs in the roof of the mine. Theoretically, this is possible, real - very, very unlikely ...

    Quote: ism_ek
    The mines of the Strategic Missile Forces regiment are spaced so that two mines cannot be destroyed by a single nuclear explosion. A mobile installation can be destroyed from outer space with conventional weapons ..

    Yes, two silos with one charge are really impossible to hit. The Americans have a two-to-one concept (two combat units per silo). But also APU from space cannot be hit. There is no such weapon. And finding the APU on the patrol route is not so simple.

    Quote: ism_ek
    The radius of action of "Poplar" and modifications is 10 t.km. The United States can only be obtained from the European part of the Russian Federation.

    Yes, and what, from Eastern Siberia, in particular Barnaul or Irkutsk, is no longer available? Religion does not allow?

    Quote: ism_ek
    The European missile defense system significantly complicates our lives ..

    How will this Euro missile defense complicate our lives? The fact that the early warning radar will detect the same "Poplars" already at such an altitude and range that it is impossible to hit them. In addition, Euro-missile defense is a missile designed to intercept missiles with a flight range of 3500-4000 km, that is, medium-range. And Russia does not have such from the word at all ...

    Quote: ism_ek
    You can still shoot from Eastern Siberia and the Far East, but there are no roads. The effect of stealth is lost ..

    No roads? you happen to be confused with the end of the 19th century ???

    Quote: ism_ek
    Topol has only 3 warheads. Opportunities to overcome missile defense are limited.

    There is only one warhead on Topol. It was and is. But KSP PRO is ...

    Quote: ism_ek
    Only a solid propellant rocket can be installed on a mobile complex. And with the development of solid fuels, we are very far behind the United States. Advanced Soviet developments remained in Ukraine.
    .

    What are you saying? Lagging behind? You need to understand that "Poplar-M" and "Yars" - this is trash? We can and are lagging behind in the life of solid fuel complexes and cannot serially wash out old fuel and recharge with new one. But according to the recipes we are at the level of the Americans

    Quote: ism_ek
    The new Sarmat mine rocket will be liquid-fuel, have 10 warheads plus a bunch of tricks and get to the United States from anywhere in the world along a flat path.

    Lord Well, at least they took a pencil and calculated how much it would deliver to any point on the planet along a flat path. Another media chatter is perceived as the ultimate truth.
    "Delivery" through the south pole is possible, but at the same time the casting weight drops about three times. And the point is that the rocket will go to the target not 30 minutes, but an hour and a half ??? This made sense when the southern direction of the United States was not covered by the SPRN radar system. Now why?
    Shooting along the flat path leads to the fact that the range drops by about three times, and accuracy decreases several times. It’s one thing to put a 500 kt head at a distance of 100 meters from the target, another thing is half a kilometer ...

    Quote: nikoliski
    do not overestimate intelligence from the satellite (it’s not without reason that they ask for an open sky for reconnaissance aircraft) because, say, only 30% of those who went “on a flight” are detected from the satellite

    Overestimate, as well as underestimate satellite intelligence is not worth it. Now the resolution of satellite equipment is much higher than that in the 80s. Civilian satellites have appeared in quite a large number, which the United States Defense Ministry regularly use. Unlike optoelectronic reconnaissance satellites, they conduct surface surveys not only in panchrome mode, but can also shoot in different spectral ranges. On modern - such ranges may be 6-7. And if in some of the ranges it was previously possible to mask the APU, now it is more difficult to do. Subbands overlap each other. Although there are difficulties. The resolving power of them (remote sensing satellites) is small compared with optical reconnaissance satellites. but in the complex, namely the satellites of radar, optical reconnaissance, remote sensing should not be underestimated

    Quote: nikoliski
    gone "on a flight" in the taiga PU poplar M

    And in the taiga "Poplar-M" do not go. They are deployed in the Volga region.

    Quote: nikoliski
    and if the Soviet project were to be implemented, which was closed due to lack of money (to transport a missile with a warhead in a refrigerator truck on a Maza chassis along an ordinary highway, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to track a PU camouflaged as usual in the current stream of PU trucks).

    Impossible. But it would be impossible for us to track their “Dwarf". And they closed it not because of lack of money, but for completely different reasons.
    In-1 by mutual agreement with the United States. We do not deploy the Courier, they are the Dwarf. And secondly, for some reason, the usual MAZ did not fit. And to make a tractor 2 or 4-axle - no stealth, as on
  18. +5
    29 July 2018 21: 22
    I will continue

    Quote: Horse, people and soul
    The Perimeter system automatically launches missiles if there is no communication with the command center and the sensor system reports an enemy nuclear attack.

    Command missiles are launched from the Leningrad Region to the Far East, which transmit the remaining missiles a launch signal. I suspect that perimeter missiles are also launched from the Far East towards Peter.

    For almost 30 years now, nothing has been launched in the Leningrad Region within the framework of the Perimeter system. For 30 years she has been in a completely different place, in the positional area of ​​the 8th division. And nothing will fly away from the Far East towards the Leningrad Region. There is no KR system "Perimeter" there. From the word completely

    Quote: Svetlana
    And also Skiff. At the bottom of lakes and seas. Combines high protection with a layer of water several hundred meters from the first impact with mobility - the ability to relocate to another point of occurrence. It is impossible to give a high-precision BB ICB Trident a flight mission to defeat Skif, because location coordinates are unknown.

    And where is this "Scythian"? What is this system all about? The test was on "Sarov", the product was released through a TA caliber of the order of 1 meter? What will a rocket of this caliber do? How long will it fly away? At 100 km? by 300 ??
    Yes, it is impossible for Trident to issue a defense order to defeat Skif. But do not forget that each coin has two sides. We will deploy the “Skif” (if it is worthy of this) and our opponents will do exactly the same. It's just that it’s very difficult for us to “sow” the waters washing the USA, and with our coastline the Americans can fill such a quantity of similar missiles ...

    Quote: Puncher
    Quote: Horse, people and soul
    What arrives, destroys only empty launchers with crews that have already fulfilled their duty.

    The time between receiving an order to launch and starting an ICBM at a silo and a PGRC is different. An ICBM in a silo is ready to take off immediately, while Poplar is in the base in a reinforced-concrete hangar with a sliding roof. That is, you need to remove the lid, lift the container with the rocket and launch. And then every second is precious. Not for nothing, the Voivode’s developers came up with missile protection at the launch site of the flight, they realized that the rocket would have to take off through a nuclear explosion.

    To move the roof of the Krona is a matter of seconds. Raising the TPK is also a matter of a few seconds, a maximum of a dozen. Yes, the mine’s readiness for launch is less than that of the PGRK, but there is no question of minutes there either ...

    Quote: ism_ek
    Quote: Puncher
    the construction of only one division will cost as a small city.

    Under the USSR, a team of workers dug up a rocket mine manually in a month. Further, installation required only a powerful crane. Everything was going as a constructor.

    Oh really? For a month and manually? Well and nonsense. The mine for the R-36M family of missiles, to which the Voivode belongs, has a diameter of about 6 meters and a depth of about 40 meters. This means that the volume of soil that will need to be removed from the mine shaft is 4521,6 cubic meters. If a brigade could manually remove at least 10 cubic meters of soil per day, then even in this situation the time will be 452 days. That is a year and 2,5 months. True, I doubt very much that from a depth of 30-40 meters this team would manually raise 10 cubes per day ...
    1. 0
      30 July 2018 11: 02
      SKIF is a highly protected ampouled metal container with ICBMs inside it.
      The container does not have movers for self-movement, but is equipped with devices for moving it with third-party tugs to a new place of occurrence at the bottom. There are also communication facilities, a power supply source, and facilities for launching ICBMs from a container.
      Sowing the waters washing the USA, the Scythians are not necessary - the range of ICBMs allows it to achieve the goal from domestic reservoirs.
  19. +3
    29 July 2018 22: 07
    Quote: Vard
    The main conclusion ... It is necessary to have both ... And another ...
    And the third! I mean rpkSNy. They have all the advantages of both basing systems: secretive, mobile, their location is not determined, they are protected by the thickness of the water and the PC of the underwater missile carrier! As well as the security and defense system of the protected area of ​​the database.
    Therefore, the Shtatovs make the main bet on their SSBNs.
    Somehow, however.
    1. -1
      1 August 2018 06: 05
      as it turned out, the water column is no longer a defense either - American patrol planes see the submarine to a certain depth (I don’t know what controls there, but the midshipman-submariner told me about it and they see it not from the buoys scattered around, but its body in the water) therefore, most of all, we love the Arctic under cold thick ice, not a single thermal imager, not a single echo sounder and radar can see them, but for a training launch (the same midshipman) I was told how they surfaced after cutting the ice (for this, they say a special corner was welded on bridge)
  20. +2
    29 July 2018 22: 26
    Quote: Operator
    PGRK - a solution for rogues like North Korea and Israel laughing

    An exception is ICBMs and RSDs in the form factor of a large-tonnage container on a trailer moving along public roads.

    And also the USSR-Russia.

    Quote: marshes
    Quote: Operator
    Google MGM-134 Midgetman and 15П159 Courier.

    According to Google, the courier, alas, is not there, and that mine is, alas, for that size and weight, that’s it.

    You have mixed up the Minuteman with the Midgetman. Both the Courier and Midgetman are light missiles with a warhead with a capacity of 400 kt approximately. The weight of these babies is about 15 tons. Not the best option if there are restrictions on the number of missiles and BG

    Quote: Operator
    ICBM "Swirl" remained in the project for only one reason - the Americans really asked for it when preparing the treaty on environmental protection

    The “Swirl” project with the F-22 missile, as well as the subsequent version with the F-27 ICBMs, was created and tested in the early 80s, after the conclusion of the OSV-2 agreement. And it was not closed because of the request of the Americans. Mutually closed the program "Courier" (we) and "Midzhitmen" ("Dwarf") - Americans

    Quote: Operator
    Plus, at any moment in the composition of the solid fuel “Swirls” it was possible to replace ammonium perchlorate and aluminum with the domestic invention of ammonium dinitramide (spent on the third stage of the R-23 UTTKh “Molodets”), after which the F-22 range would be equal to the range of the “Voivode”

    Andrey, stop making nonsense. Nobody was going to change anything. It was an experienced R&D. Even the flight tests of the R&D line “Vernitsa” did not pass. There were "pokatushki" with mock-ups to understand whether it could be done or not. Moreover, apart from one missile for the Strategic Missile Forces and one for the fleet, Tyurin’s Design Bureau launched nothing more in the series. And almost at the beginning of the 80s it was transferred to the space theme

    Quote: marshes
    But they don’t drive along the tracks, they simply transfer them from the mine to the railway mine, although Stary wrote that it was forbidden by contracts.
    Therefore, they, the meritorious leaders of the free world, built a triad, Most of all on aviation, there are tactics, then the sea, and 25 percent of the land is an answer, although the remaining 75 can be said to be an attack weapon.

    Just "Midgetman" was specifically designed for movement on roads. And what I wrote about was one of the first deployment options for MX. And indeed under the contract it was forbidden to have reserve mines for one rocket. The second option was the deployment option, again MX in covered trenches and finally the third option - the so-called Project "Track", when the rocket was transported along a concrete track with a diameter of several hundred kilometers and after certain distances there were shelters for cars with missiles. After the flight of the Soviet intelligence satellite, the vehicles began to move and relocated to another shelter. To find them would be almost impossible, but it was fabulously expensive even for rich America ...

    Quote: Narak-zempo
    It is possible, for example, under the cover of the construction of a metro in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, to begin tunneling under the Bering Sea in the USA and then a network of tunnels under the entire territory of mattress covers. Further, super-powerful thermonuclear charges are laid under them under all key objects. At the right time, they are undermined by a signal on the cable. Instantly, without any flying time, and no missile defense will help.

    Can you imagine the rate of penetration with a tunnel shield? How many years will only a tunnel under the strait be built? Maybe for the 300th anniversary or the 400th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution and make a network of tunnels under the United States. But most likely by the anniversary date - the 500th anniversary ...

    Quote: Giants
    Slightly newer R-36M / M2 missiles are available in the amount of 46 units,
    Author, Governor on alert 26 units. This amount was relevant half a year ago. Now it may be less.

    This amount was relevant for July-October 2017. How much now is very difficult to say. I have not seen the last data exchange

    Quote: Saxahorse
    The range of modern ATGM systems is more than 10 km. And the launcher is huge and slow. The armored personnel carrier will greatly help her with such an attack. Again, a handful of home-made drones gnawed twice at the Tartus air defense base, and if not self-made drones, somewhere on the route? Again, an armored personnel carrier will swell one?

    Only the anti-sabotage units are not only in front and behind the columns. In addition, most of the patrol launchers do not go on public roads. And the speed. The speed is big enough. About 45-50 km / h. Drones ... I wonder how they can be, for example, in the area of ​​Barnaul or Irkutsk? Do not confuse our base in Syria, where the enemy may already be behind the perimeter of the airfield and the areas of deployment of missile divisions
  21. 0
    30 July 2018 03: 36
    Well, the hybrid type of launcher also suggests itself: spaced numerous mines connected by tunnels through which the PGRK with missiles from time to time travel. And which of the many mines is currently active is a mystery.
    Expensively, of course, but it wasn’t built like that.
  22. 0
    30 July 2018 06: 06
    Quote: M. Michelson
    Today, 03: 36
    Well, the hybrid type of launcher also suggests itself: spaced numerous mines connected by tunnels through which the PGRK with missiles from time to time travel. And which of the many mines is currently active is a mystery.
    Expensively, of course, but it wasn’t built like that

    Already built, only ground)))
    Can you imagine the level of costs? In the conditions of "developed" capitalism, this is unrealistic. Rather, it’s real, but because of those who want to pinch off their piece, the cost will be astronomical.
    This is, firstly, and secondly, to travel through tunnels and load-unload a rocket into the mine, every few kilometers, some kind of nonsense.
    1. 0
      30 July 2018 19: 03
      This is not nonsense, this is the first MX placement option: 10 mines are connected by a tunnel, in which mine the rocket is unknown. The United States calculated the price - fucked up. The second option is heavy-duty mines located very close by. The idea was that with such an arrangement of such mines, our warhead would destroy one mine (but only one) and, at the same time, destroy warheads aimed at other mines. The Americans calculated the price - they blew darkly. After that they decided to shove the MX into ordinary mines (like those of the Minutemans), and then exchanged MX for our BZHRK.
  23. 0
    30 July 2018 08: 40
    Quote: M. Michelson
    Well, the hybrid type of launcher also suggests itself: spaced numerous mines connected by tunnels through which the PGRK with missiles from time to time travel. And which of the many mines is currently active is a mystery.
    Expensively, of course, but it wasn’t built like that.

    This idea was discussed back in the late 70s, if not earlier. The so-called "deaf" mines so that no one knows where the exits are from. But they came to the conclusion that such basing would only spur the arms race even more. Therefore, according to strategic agreements, this type of basing was prohibited (one battle and several false mines). That and the creation of such mine complexes was associated not only with technical difficulties, but most importantly with enormous financial costs
  24. 0
    30 July 2018 11: 44
    And best of all! Missiles in launch cars do not even have to go to designated launch areas, and tracking them (if a Yars missile weighs up to 50 tons, so special cars are not needed) is impossible!
  25. 0
    30 July 2018 14: 46
    Quote: nnz226
    And best of all! Missiles in launch cars do not even have to go to designated launch areas, and tracking them (if a Yars missile weighs up to 50 tons, so special cars are not needed) is impossible!

    What is it like? Should the car not enter designated launch areas? Why then does he need it at all? To just be? To deploy it in the amount of 1 division, as planned, is crazy. It is cheaper to deploy one additional regiment in existing divisions than to fence a garden for the sake of one division. It will be necessary to create everything FROM SCRATCH
    1. -1
      1 August 2018 05: 59
      Once again they refused from the BZHRK, now it seems forever, the reason is that during the USSR, thousands of ref trains across the country went around (I myself studied at the ref at one time) and now take a look, well, when will it go well, now everything has been transported by trucks for a long time , by the way, I read about the special forces Vympel the biography book was told there when they (to check if this is possible in principle?) were given the task of hijacking a train with a rocket, they completed it (well, I don’t know how seriously the guards participating in this operation really resisted, the train conditionally remains a fact "captured", and the side of the car could open from the outside with a directed sabotage charge)
  26. 0
    30 July 2018 23: 13
    Quote: Svetlana
    SKIF is a highly protected ampouled metal container with ICBMs inside it.
    The container does not have movers for self-movement, but is equipped with devices for moving it with third-party tugs to a new place of occurrence at the bottom. There are also communication facilities, a power supply source, and facilities for launching ICBMs from a container.
    Sowing the waters washing the USA, the Scythians are not necessary - the range of ICBMs allows it to achieve the goal from domestic reservoirs.

    And when was this so-called ICBM tested? TTX him? And it’s quite difficult to call the Skif R&D an intercontinental missile
  27. +1
    1 August 2018 10: 50
    Quote: nikoliski
    Americans are going to place nuclear weapons in space (satellites with small-sized nuclear warheads) so when they do (and Trump and Congress approved hundreds of billions of dollars worth of such strategic upgrades) it will not matter in the center of the country a mine (satellites fly over and over Siberia, too) or on the outskirts, firstly, secondly, the base in Kamchatka means minimal population loss when hitting it (unlike Tatishchev, for example) secondly, if we strike first, it makes the flight time minimal In contrast to rockets fired from the center of the country.


    I don’t know what Trump endorsed there and what the media outlet was, but the very idea of ​​putting nuclear weapons into orbit is a stillborn idea. This would make sense if the Americans and only they flew into space, while others would not have not only space programs, but also anti-satellite weapons.
    In addition, a satellite in orbit cannot at any given time give an order to destroy certain targets on earth. On average, it flies over the same point twice a day. In addition, a satellite is not a warhead with its thermal protection system. It is impossible to guarantee that the charge will remain operational at all. It turns out that in the case of ICBMs, target defeat is guaranteed after 30 minutes, and in the case of satellites with YBZ on board - after 12 hours at least. Trump, of course, is sometimes unpredictable, but you can't call him an idiot. Throw hundreds of billions of dollars into a system that does not have strategic value (this is an analogue of our Poseidon and Petrel, which also have no strategic value, but are weapons that can be used when neither Russia nor the USA, as countries on the world map will not remain) he will not. Moreover, in the near future he will have such costly projects as the creation of new warheads, the creation of a new SSBN, a new SLBM, a new ICBM, and a new bomber.

    Quote: nikoliski
    Once again they refused from the BZHRK, now it seems forever, the reason is that during the USSR, thousands of ref trains across the country went around (I myself studied at the ref at one time) and now take a look, well, when will it go well, now everything has been transported by trucks for a long time , by the way, I read about the special forces Vympel the biography book was told there when they (to check if this is possible in principle?) were given the task of hijacking a train with a rocket, they completed it (well, I don’t know how seriously the guards participating in this operation really resisted, the train conditionally remains a fact "captured", and the side of the car could open from the outside with a directed sabotage charge)

    They refused, not because there were fewer re-trains (no one bothers to disguise the carriage of the complex as a mail or freight train), but that now its identification is much easier than 30 years ago. Then the resolution of the satellites was different, but not even that. The structure of the train stood out from the others. Moreover, its movement on roads led to the breaking of the schedule of routes of other trains, especially on the Trans-Siberian Railway. And besides, three divisions were deployed in the USSR, although it was planned 7. Now, to fence a garden for the sake of one division, creating from scratch the entire infrastructure - money down the drain. And it’s good that they postponed it to the "long box". it would be better to cover this topic in general
  28. 0
    28 December 2018 18: 48
    Quote: ism_ek
    Quote: Puncher
    the construction of only one division will cost as a small city.

    Under the USSR, a team of workers dug up a rocket mine manually in a month. Further, installation required only a powerful crane. Everything was going as a constructor.


    One and a half digger? wassat They dug a mine there with an excavator, then tubing, pouring concrete, etc.
  29. 0
    23 January 2019 13: 02
    Quote: Old26
    Quote: Svetlana
    SKIF is a highly protected ampouled metal container with ICBMs inside it.
    The container does not have movers for self-movement, but is equipped with devices for moving it with third-party tugs to a new place of occurrence at the bottom. There are also communication facilities, a power supply source, and facilities for launching ICBMs from a container.
    Sowing the waters washing the USA, the Scythians are not necessary - the range of ICBMs allows it to achieve the goal from domestic reservoirs.

    And when was this so-called ICBM tested? TTX him? And it’s quite difficult to call the Skif R&D an intercontinental missile


    Are you, by any chance, not from the CIA? Tested a few years ago, there were reports on the Internet. And the tests themselves were covered by the tests of Poseidon: Well, there is a TA with a diameter of 1 meter and so on .. laughing tongue wassat
  30. 0
    31 July 2020 19: 06
    Quote: Puncher
    Quote: nikoliski
    Mines are better of course, but not like the way we do with the Americans, when Yeltsin concluded START and we informed them the coordinates of all our mines

    Like the Americans.
    Quote: nikoliski
    this is how the Chinese mines make thicker mountains that can withstand a nuclear strike

    And in our country there are no mountains? And it makes sense, if it was possible to cover not Moscow with missile defense, but the ICBM division with silos, as the Americans did.
    Quote: nikoliski
    no one knows exactly where, that is, without exact coordinates you will not bombard every square kilometer of Tibet with nuclear missiles in order to “find” mines?

    It is impossible to completely hide such complex structures as silos, because too many processes accompany the life of any unit. Reconnaissance is vigilant and it is enough to establish the proposed deployment area in order to open up the entire system.



    Can . We make a trailer, on it in the TPK missile R-29RMU. We carry from place to place. But what we are carrying air or a rocket go and find out. And in which case, 2-3 minutes and went dear to the goal. Everything worked out ...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"