Military Review

Will there be enough Vanguards?

38
With reference to unnamed sources in the media, it was announced that the first regiment with the Avangard combat missile system, or, more precisely, the 15А35-71 ICBM with the aeroballist maneuvering 15Y71 hypersonic combat equipment (AGGB), will be on the line, and will be armed with an air ballistic maneuvering 6Y2027 maneuvering hypersonic military equipment (AGGB) that will be deployed, will be armed with an air-ballistic maneuvering XNUMXYXNUMX maneuvering military equipment (AGGB). Strategic Missile Forces next year. This, in general, was known before, but the number of silo launchers (silo silos) in the regiment - XNUMX was announced here. And the number of regiments allegedly provided for the LG-XNUMX is two.


Will there be enough Vanguards?


Immediately there were disappointed comments from people, with the theme of the SNF completely unfamiliar, but always dissatisfied with something: they say, the Avant-garde 12 is not enough, it was worth promoting this super-weapon for the sake of it and so on and so forth. But this is not so little as someone thinks. In addition, everything in the world is relative, as a well-known joke says, is it a lot of three hairs? If on the head, then almost nothing, and if in the soup, then very much. So with the "Avant-garde" - they just do not seem a little.

First of all, I would like to note that not all "unnamed sources" are equally useful as yogurts, and that it is not known with numbers. Yes, the deployment of missile regiments of the Strategic Missile Forces with mine-based combat missile systems usually starts from the 6 launch positions. But in the future, the regiment, as a rule, is deployed to the full configuration in the 10 silo. Some shelves, however, may remain abbreviated. So even if the information on the 2 shelves is correct, then the missiles may be in them in the future and 20. In addition, if you roughly estimate where you can place 15А35-71 (and in their own, "35-e", the new modification of the mine does not fit the length, AGPA "Avangard" is rather big, including from the high power SBCH) , it is quite possible to find a place for three full-size regiments, and even more. And the third regiment is very likely to be an option, according to the results of the deployment of the first two. It could have been more, but the “old” 15А35 have already earned and re-served their resources, although they have confirmed their reliability during the tests with Avangard and combat training launches. A "dry" 15А35 for a hypersonic maneuvering warhead was purchased, it is believed, of the order of 30 pieces. And they were purchased at the beginning of 2000's in the now feral Ukraine, for sure it was for this, albeit for another modification, which began to fly in 2004, when V.V. Putin for the first time reported about the presence of Russia like weapons. Although the actual number of purchased ICBMs could differ from the announced one in one direction or another, it is insignificant. So there may be 2 full regiments (20 missiles), 3 shortcuts (18), and even full 3 (30) and mixed versions are also possible. However, the 3 full regiment is still unlikely - we still need some small reserve for combat training launches.

Why, what difference does the skeptics say - that 12, 20, 30 are still not enough, well, you will break through the US missile defense, then several dozen powerful units will not be able to cause crushing damage. Indeed, the Avangard AGGBO, like other similar constructions developed in Russia, is positioned as a technology that makes any missile defense null and void. But after all, conventional non-maneuvering BBs are still completely protected from missile defense. We will not remind you that neither BBI nor SM-3 Block-2A did not intercept any BB ICBMs and SLBMs even in greenhouse conditions, and are not intended, it seems, for this, firing at medium and intermediate range missiles with perseverance worthy better use. We will not remind that GBI is too small (44) to repel any massive (and even not so much) nuclear missile strike by the Russian strategic nuclear forces. We will not talk about the still unresolved problems of identifying false targets, even against primitive CSC PRO, and about the still-unfolded orbital segments of this system. Sometime, very soon, but these problems can solve.

But it should be recalled that the modern PCB missile defense system created in the Russian Federation for conventional non-maneuvering (but it is also to cover the maneuvering fellows) blocks and so allows to overcome the promising US missile defense with high probability. Both the parameters and the probable solutions of such a PCB PRO were described even more than 10 years ago in one of the open publications written by the then head of the 4 Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense. So why do we need AGBO Avangard, once and ordinary BB while their tasks performed? To begin with, this is the development of a new weapon technology, which will continue to spread further - this is how the Anchar-RV AGBO is already being developed. So by the end of the current LG-2027, such maneuvering blocks may already be much more than a few dozen.

Avangard will serve as the first sign on which questions of the exploitation and combat use of a new weapon will be worked out. Therefore, a new weapon is being deployed on the basis of a reliable and repeatedly tested ICBM not even of 5 or 4 generations, but of the 3. In addition, this device, apparently, is a carrier of high power SBSh - 2 Mt type estimates are called, perhaps this is so, perhaps there is a charge and less, more probably, the device is also large, and the weight and dimensions of our nuclear scientists are very impressive. and the improvement of charges does not stop. We will not make assumptions about the presence of several charges on 15Ü71 at once, which are shot during a flight for different purposes - in theory it is possible, and there were reports of the development of such weapons in the Russian Federation, but most likely, in this case it is not. This means that a powerful charge is definitely not needed to compensate for low power. Most likely, it is also not necessary to defeat relatively mobile targets, such as aircraft-carrier groups - the charges of anti-ship missiles are also powerful, because metal structures are well tolerated by the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion, but this is not the case - too unique weapons, and we have anti-ship reliable weapons quite enough.

So, apart from the theoretical breakthrough of the “ideal US missile defense system” and disabling its key ground nodes, the Avant-garde may be needed to defeat highly protected and especially important targets, while defeating an exact, and, most importantly, fast one — don't forget that this weapon flies. to the target along the flat trajectory, which drastically reduces both the possibilities for its detection and the extent of defeat, and the flight time can also be reduced. Regular, non-maneuvering BB ICBMs and SLBMs can also be sent to the target along a flat trajectory, but at a shorter distance, due to the crazy energy costs of such a launch in the atmosphere. And also with not very high accuracy, which makes such a launch hardly applicable to highly protected targets and especially important targets.

The Americans, while upgrading the BB W76-1, tried to improve its capabilities during the launch of the Trident-2 by developing a fuse that compensates somewhat for distance spreading. But this decision also, in spite of advertising statements and writings of various “American scientists”, does not allow to hit the “difficult” goals of high security - an atmospheric explosion. But the “Vanguard” will succeed. Including the right bunker hit. And fast. That is, a kind of "rocket special forces", an expensive weapon for specific tasks, almost invulnerable and no protection against it. Moreover, it is applicable both in a retaliatory or a counter strike, and in a “strike at the appointed time”. Despite the well-known statements, our SNF, like the United States SNF, does not exclude any scenarios for itself, and no one thinks to remove the timer for counting the time before launch from command posts. The Americans did, despite similar peace-loving statements, always “sharpen” their SNFs and under the probable first blow, they even saved on the strength of silo silos. And the tendency of American SSBNs to patrol, including in the Indian Ocean or the Mediterranean, from which it becomes possible to strike a flat trajectory, clearly indicates not the reciprocal nature of such a strike. So live with wolves - shoot wolves, let them not cry about Avangard and his ilk.

In addition, Avangards, as many assume, will not only be on the "weave" (15А35), but also on the newest heavy Sarmat 15А28, and not on a single device, but, most likely, on 3 - the estimated payload allows . It is clear that “Sarmatov” will not be on duty much, there are various approximate estimates, in how many mines from 15А18М “Voevoda” he will rise, but definitely it will be a number between 30-35 and 40-45, somewhere like that. And not all of them will have Avangard, but an absolute minority - the main load will be conventional warheads and the newest set of means to overcome missile defense (PCB). The main function of the heavy ICBM in our Strategic Missile Forces requires just such a load.

Of course, this is the case if the START-3 Treaty on 2021 does not go to landfill. stories or if it is replaced by some similar and adequate document. Because if it does not, and the construction of new silos, if necessary, cannot be ruled out - yes, it is difficult and expensive, but underground structures such as those under Yamantau and in other places are even more difficult and expensive. So we can afford and silos. In conclusion, the new Treaty is still hard to believe - it is difficult to sign adequate contracts with inadequate. The Americans and in the course of the battles on START-3 drank blood from the Russian delegation in liters. Then they are ready to cut the carriers, they are not ready (they finally cut them pretty), then they fought for receiving full telemetry from tests, then they finally agreed to a compromise that satisfied the Russian Federation, then they demanded to set mobile launchers in combat positions for a few days for counting . In response, they received a request to then surface the submarine rocket carriers in combat patrol areas, also for several days and also with open covers, and calmed down, realizing that the demands were delusional. In general, it has always been difficult with them, but our negotiators are also not sugar. And in recent years, since the second term of Obama (it’s not even in the Crimea and Donbas with Syria, everything started earlier) - this is already some kind of inappropriate behavior. It remains to hope that the instinct of self-preservation still does not refuse them.

In general, in the case of an assessment of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the future Avangard Park, you should trust the highest military-political leadership of the country - it knows what it is doing in this case.
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of Russia
38 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 6 November 2018 12: 13
    -8
    -So to live with wolves - to shoot wolves, let them not cry about "Vanguard" and the like. -

    Instead of the Mace, the Vanguard does not plan to put the Avangard product on the SSBN. The partners plan to deliver the main blow from naval protrusions and directions.

    - American SSBNs to patrol, including in the Indian Ocean or the Mediterranean -

    Where the probability of the appearance of at least one MAPL of the Russian Navy is close to zero.
    1. Fungus
      Fungus 6 November 2018 12: 15
      -1
      Did your partners personally tell you? This is all your speculation and all) How it will actually be recognized at the last moment.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 6 November 2018 12: 18
        -12
        Read online materials about partners.
        1. Voyager
          Voyager 6 November 2018 14: 23
          +9
          You at least once, at least one proof specifically can you give, without devious "read on the internet, take an interest in this and that"?
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 11 November 2018 16: 12
            +1
            Quote: Voyager
            You at least once, at least one proof can be specific, without devious "read on the internet, take an interest in this and that"?

            This is Gunya in person! He personally (!) Took part in ALL military developments (the human being is simple!), He lives in the office of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, so that he is aware of all plans and decisions)))) Listen to Gunia, comrades! He knows! wink
            1. Bug_Nyuk
              Bug_Nyuk 12 November 2018 03: 59
              +1
              what's the truth? cannernerminer own?
              1. Albert1988
                Albert1988 13 November 2018 19: 18
                +1
                Quote: Bug_Nyuk
                what's the truth? cannernerminer own?

                He is the most, dear, our "gunnerminer" dear wink
    2. kjhg
      kjhg 6 November 2018 12: 49
      +1
      12 Vanguards until 2027 - this is very small. The author is already trying to justify the placement of such a small amount, but all this does not look convincing at all. I can understand that there is not enough money for the purchase of promising Su-57s (6 units in 6 years - this is for chickens to laugh), not enough for the purchase of Armata, there is no money for the Navy. But I can’t believe in any way that I can’t find the money to upgrade the strategic nuclear forces. It is well known that Russia’s gold and currency reserves today amount to about $ 450 billion, and the budget surplus for 2018 should be about 2,5 trillion rubles if oil prices remain at the current level. Next year, they will add a lot of money received from raising taxes, excise taxes on gasoline, as well as money taken from pensioners who were supposed to retire, but will not be able to. Conclusion: there is money for strategic security in the country! This means that either technically production capacities do not allow producing more, which is unlikely, either the products are not effective and they are needed only as a scarecrow, or the country's leadership is only interested in PR and window dressing, and not real safety preservation.
      1. credo
        credo 6 November 2018 14: 25
        +2
        Quote: kjhg
        Next year, they will add considerable money received from tax increases, excise taxes on gasoline, as well as money taken from pensioners who were supposed to retire, but will not be able to. Conclusion: there is money for strategic security in the country! This means that either technically production capacities do not allow producing more, which is unlikely, either the products are not effective and they are needed only as a scarecrow, or the country's leadership is only interested in PR and window dressing, and not real safety preservation.

        We must proceed from a reasonable necessity, and not measure the security of a country depending on the number of ICBMs. If the industrial, military and human potential of the enemy can be reduced to zero by thirty or a hundred ICBMs, then why rivet 10. As for "PR and show," then you are just a naive person and do not understand the banal things that are called in any normal army DISINFORMATION of the enemy.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 6 November 2018 15: 04
        +3
        This surplus of 2,5 trillion will go to replenish the reserve fund, and so every year from year to year, 20 trillion will not accumulate there - in the event of another global economic crisis or new large-scale unforeseen expenses, and oil prices in terms of budget adoption, will decrease to $ 40 per barrel and below.
      3. NEXUS
        NEXUS 6 November 2018 16: 45
        +1
        Quote: kjhg
        12 Vanguards until 2027 - this is very small. The author is already trying to justify the placement of such a small amount, but all this does not look convincing at all.

        Say little ... hmm ... and KR Petrel, Poseidon, Sarmat, Yars, X-102, is that not enough? The author correctly said, running in technologies first of all. This technology has not been sufficiently developed and studied, therefore, betting on it for the most part is premature.
      4. Uryukc
        Uryukc 6 November 2018 17: 01
        -1
        Quote: kjhg
        12 Vanguards until 2027 - this is very small.

        Why does everyone want 100500 Vanguards, there are 2 megatons SBCH! A megaton is 1000 times more than a kiloton, that is, the SBCH is 1000 times more powerful than the "Kid". This is a very powerful weapon and there are few targets for it. Have pity on the earth.
        1. Vikxnumx
          Vikxnumx 6 November 2018 19: 41
          +1
          We must clearly state our nuclear strategy!
          No point strikes with low power warheads!
          Want to get out of START and INF Treaty, how did you get out of missile defense? The flag is in your hands! All missiles of the Russian Federation will be equipped with SBN with minimum power (for cast weight). And with the maximum number of warheads planted in all inhabited territories of the USA! And we will see where there will be more habitable territories!
          Come in, welcome!
          1. Uryukc
            Uryukc 6 November 2018 19: 52
            +2
            Quote: VIK1711
            with the maximum number of warheads

            Yes, and so it was planned to place up to 20 warheads in Sarmatia. And Yars is at least compact and light, but unlike Topol carries 3 warheads. So everything is fine with us. The question is about flying time, Amerza can afford to place medium- and short-range missiles in Europe, but we can hardly put such complexes into the Caribbean. Well have to answer like that else.
      5. 123456789
        123456789 6 November 2018 18: 18
        +2
        Quote: kjhg
        It is well known that today gold and foreign exchange reserves of Russia amount to about $ 450 billion,

        The external debt of Russia as of January 1, 2018, according to the Bank of Russia, amounted to $ 529,1 billion
        or, products are not effective

        or, products are redundant in conditions of existing parity.
        1. cradle
          cradle 12 November 2018 14: 10
          0
          no need to interfere with God's gift with the lamb. State debt is only 51 lard. And the debts of enterprises ... well, I couldn’t, I couldn’t ... maybe the company will go bankrupt? Easy!
  2. svp67
    svp67 6 November 2018 12: 26
    +4
    In all appearances, it turns out that in addition to the "Sarmat", another missile should be adopted to equip our Strategic Missile Forces, to replace the UR-100 ... "Are you heavy Monomakhov's hat"
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 6 November 2018 16: 48
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      that in addition to the "Sarmat", another missile should be adopted to equip our Strategic Missile Forces, to replace the UR-100 ...

      Most likely it will be the ICBM Rubezh (Vanguard) RS-26.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 6 November 2018 20: 20
        0
        Vryatli, rather, the production of UR 100UTTX analogue missiles in Russia will be improved - there are a lot of mines under them.
  3. Jerk
    Jerk 6 November 2018 12: 53
    +2
    And in recent years, since Obama’s second term (it’s not even in the Crimea and Donbass with Syria, it all started earlier) - this is already some kind of inappropriate behavior.

    Exactly. At least the fact that the withdrawal from START was clearly outlined already in 2012 ... It seems that they realized the inevitability of the collapse of Pax America - and since then they have been furiously looking for an opportunity for a "small but victorious" one, which in theory unites the nation and gives a respite to the empire.
    Only it’s very risky - in fact, at any moment the situation can reach nuclear weapons, moreover, already provocations for which it could fly - it was a shaft, and all because of tripods. The same coup in Turkey - coordinated with the US base in Turkey, and there lies nuclear weapons. And rebels are running around, armed with combat helicopters, for example, and the planes could probably be raised ... And then - 1 step for the universal trend. And again - the tails are drawn to the United States.
    Maniacs Sucks
  4. jonht
    jonht 6 November 2018 13: 25
    +2
    12-20 or 30 pieces, it doesn’t matter ... The cities of millionaires in the states will not get wet any more, but 70–80 percent of the FSA population will be turned to dust. And this is definitely IMPOSSIBLE LOSS for the FSA. And there is no need for sophistry, at this stage this is one that keeps the FSA in check.
    1. igorka357
      igorka357 8 November 2018 05: 08
      +1
      Um ... for the USA, unacceptable losses are 40% of the country's population and 25% of technological production! If the enemy’s strike exceeds this threshold, the United States will never go to war, and Pentagon analysts are serious, therefore they are trying to weaken us economically and morally, but crap them and Vanguard in the back seat!
      1. Machito
        Machito 8 November 2018 17: 08
        0
        Not only the Vanguards, but also other carriers will take part in the blow to the USA.
    2. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 8 November 2018 18: 40
      0
      Quote: jonht
      that’s 70-80 percent of the FSA population will be turned to ashes

      We saw what kind of specialists there, instantly calculated 70-80%. Out of a bad head and not such numbers can climb.
  5. Vadim237
    Vadim237 6 November 2018 14: 57
    +1
    Yes, they will put on their new heavy ICBMs 3 Vanguards, instead of 10 individual guidance warheads.
  6. Larum
    Larum 6 November 2018 15: 07
    -2
    If you include logic, then money, big money, reluctance to spend on obviously unnecessary things.

    Su 57- although it costs (30-35 million) supposedly less than SU 3 .. (50 million), Almaty (and so on 20 thousand tanks in warehouses), aircraft carriers and destroyers, senior citizens, etc., etc. .

    Taki
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 November 2018 18: 25
      0
      Su 57 costs almost 3,5 billion rubles - too expensive a plane for our Air Force.
      1. Larum
        Larum 7 November 2018 21: 26
        -1
        50 million bucks? it’s like the old ones ... as other officials say ....
        in general, it is unlikely to be useful
  7. Vikxnumx
    Vikxnumx 6 November 2018 19: 30
    0
    And what the vegetable?
    In the same throwing weight, you can stick 2 ... 3 classic warheads in the "SPACE VERSION" with the possibility of hitting a target along a non-optimal trajectory ... and how will they be met?
    All this nuclear leapfrog rashitan only for one thing: "WE HAVE AN ENEMY AND WE NEED WEAPONS AGAINST HIM!"
    When everyone realized that there was enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire Earth several times, the arms case was a little quiet ...
    But you still need to earn money! And there are problems of the ballistic missile and missiles of Iran ....
    And in the arsenal of the army and other US law enforcement agencies will never be accepted weapons that are not produced in the United States ...
    And money for defense was received, and jobs were created, ....
  8. Old26
    Old26 7 November 2018 10: 36
    +2
    Quote: kjhg
    12 Vanguards until 2027 - this is very small. The author is already trying to justify the placement of such a small amount, but all this does not look convincing at all.

    I agree with you. His explanation does not seem convincing. Rather reminiscent of "fortune-telling on coffee grounds" Hence his passage about a missile regiment and 6 launchers, which then usually unfold up to 10 silos.
    The author should know that light rockets NEVER had regiments with 6 silos. Only from the 10th. 6 silos were only in the regiments, which were armed with heavy missiles. But there, there was EMNIP in 6 Soviet divisions, 2 regiments of 10 silos.
    the deployment of 12 silos in 2 regiments of the KMK has a slightly different explanation. There are no more new 15A35 missiles. We all the time nod to buy about 30 "dry" missiles from Ukraine. But do not forget that the purchase was made by EMNIP in 2001-2002. Already 17 years have passed. A certain amount was used when testing the same 4202 product, when the test rocket was converted into 15Yu71 product. Something will most likely be used in promising launches of the Rokot-2 LV from our own control system.

    In any case, the mines from the 35s will have to be modernized. Now we have 20 to 30 of them among the non-deployed ones. Nevertheless, remaking his native mine under a new carrier is faster and more economical than using 15A18 missile silos. There are still different types of starts ..

    How many Sarmatovs will be deployed is not yet clear. Perhaps by the number of surviving silos from Voevod. And their number is about half a hundred. Most of the Sarmatians will be deployed with standard combat equipment. How much will fit on "Sarmat" BO "Vanguard" - it is not yet clear, since the mass characteristics of the "Vanguard" are unknown. But hardly more than 2-3.

    Regarding power. Although the successes of our nuclear scientists are significant, the mass characteristics of the charges have their limitations in converting kilograms to kilotons. For low-power charges, this coefficient is one, for medium power - another, for charges of megaton power - the third. So wait and see

    Quote: Uryukc
    Why does everyone want 100500 Vanguards, there are 2 megatons SBCH! A megaton is 1000 times more than a kiloton, that is, the SBCH is 1000 times more powerful than the "Kid".

    Actually, not 1000 times more powerful, but less. The capacity of the "Kid" is estimated at 13-15 kt. 1000 times more is 13-15 megatons ...

    Quote: Uryukc
    Yes, and so it was planned to place up to 20 warheads in Sarmatia.

    Do not replicate the nonsense that the media print. The allowed number of BGs on an ICBM is no more than 10. How many "floors" the BS (SR) will have if you want to put 20 charges on it. On the "Voevoda" it was DOUBLE-STOREY. And how many here? Three floors, four?

    Quote: svp67
    In all appearances, it turns out that in addition to the "Sarmat", another missile should be adopted to equip our Strategic Missile Forces, to replace the UR-100 ... "Are you heavy Monomakhov's hat"

    It makes no sense to create and put into service a new light rocket of a hundred-ton class to replace the UR-100N UTTH (the UR-100 has not been in service for a long time). First, there is no need to increase the range of missiles again. Now we have four types of them ("Topol", "Topol-M", "Yars" and "Voyevoda". UR-1N UTTH is already listed as not deployed). Now there is no point in increasing the range by creating a new version of the "weave". Moreover, there are a couple of Yars modifications on the way. I think that this will be enough. And the deployment on the UR-100N UTTKh DB is, so to speak, a "safety measure" if something goes wrong with the Sarmat tests and the timing will shift to the right.

    Quote: NEXUS
    Most likely it will be the ICBM Rubezh (Vanguard) RS-26.

    Most likely it will not be from the word at all as an ICBM. With such range parameters, the military does not need it like an ICBM. But in the event that our "partners" leave the RIAC, its possible modernization, increasing the weight of the warhead and, accordingly, reducing the range. In fact, you will get some kind of overgrown MRBM

    Quote: Vadim237
    Vryatli, rather, the production of UR 100UTTX analogue missiles in Russia will be improved - there are a lot of mines under them.

    Not so much. In the 60th division, 20 or 30 - that's all. In the 28th, two regiments are armed with mine-based Yars, I think that the 3rd regiment will also be on the base with Yars. And we no longer have divisions that would be armed with these missiles.

    Quote: jonht
    12-20 or 30 pieces, it doesn’t matter ... The cities of millionaires in the states will not get wet any more, but 70–80 percent of the FSA population will be turned to dust. And this is definitely IMPOSSIBLE LOSS for the FSA. And there is no need for sophistry, at this stage this is one that keeps the FSA in check.

    With 30 charges, are you going to destroy 70-80 percent of the population? Original. But not really ...
    1. jonht
      jonht 8 November 2018 10: 38
      0
      If you beat the cities with millionaires? New York alone with 30-35 suburbs, and there are many such cities in the states, although not as large. Take 10 million per city 30 * 10 = 300 ... If the unit really does carry a powerful charge, then the losses will be approximately the same and I will be 70-80%. Given the subsequent extinction of part of the population from radiation sickness, I think this is more than real.
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 8 November 2018 18: 48
        0
        And how to confirm your inventions, for example, I found the following data on the network: "As a result of calculations, Russia's retaliatory strike against the United States will lead to the death of 3,3% of the population, and together with the wounded victims, 8,2% of the country's population will become." Well, shock? And I have not seen other calculations, can anyone have seen? Share.
        1. jonht
          jonht 9 November 2018 01: 05
          0
          That is, the result of survivors in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is also sideways? But there were also bomb shelters and warnings about pouring enemy aircraft, and the power of the bomb itself is by today's standards childish ...
          And probably attempts to equate this to military attacks were out of boredom.
          3,3% of 350 mil 11,55 mil. Person. As I understand it, we will shoot in the desert, and not in densely industrialized areas ... And all the FSA population will be packaged in a bomb shelter? Or is only the elite hiding?
          We will also forget about the consequences of radiation sickness and the number of deaths from it within two years.
          So the indicated 3.3% is the preparation for war and the inclusion of information to the average man that it’s okay, we’ll survive, we will win.
          And another moment, if the usual blocks fly about 25-30 minutes, then the time of the Vanguard is even less, and the question is whether they can evacuate.
  9. sergan m
    sergan m 8 November 2018 07: 31
    0
    "The deployment of missile regiments of the Strategic Missile Forces with silo-based combat missile systems usually starts from 6 starting positions. But in the future, the regiment, as a rule, is deployed to a full configuration of 10 silos."

    Materiel need to know.
    A missile regiment is either six or ten launchers.
    A regiment with six launchers cannot become with ten launchers.
    Without options.
  10. Fan-fan
    Fan-fan 8 November 2018 18: 32
    0
    Quote: VIK1711
    When everyone realized that there was enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire Earth several times, the arms case was a little quiet ...

    Got it so far that you. Or not, I didn't even understand, but sucked this nonsense out of my finger. “Several times the whole Earth” - some first bamboo blurted it out and away we go.
    Here I give information from the network: "According to experts, the power of the explosion of the Krakatau volcano exceeded the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima (20 thousand tons in TNT equivalent) by more than 200 thousand times." We will calculate already - we will multiply 20 Kilotons by 200000 , we get 4000000 Kilotons. Well, I will ask such clever people that the Earth was destroyed? In Europe, they did not even notice this explosion, on the coast of India and Australia they only heard the sound of an explosion, and the volcano itself is located in Indonesia.
    1. Soho
      Soho 9 November 2018 06: 25
      0
      Well, I ask such clever people that the Earth was destroyed? In Europe, they did not even notice this explosion, on the coasts of India and Australia they only heard the sound of an explosion, and the volcano itself is located in Indonesia.

      At least you have some grain of truth, but on the whole I think you are wrong. First, let's start with mistakes. The explosion of Krakatoa is not 200 thousand, but 10 thousand. exceeded Hiroshima. And this is about 150 Mt. According to a rough estimate, the total "tonnage" of all nuclear weapons is ~ 4500 Mt. and these are 30 such volcanic explosions. But it's just a numbers game. In fact, the problem is different. Unlike Krakatoa, which, being not in the most densely populated area, destroyed only a few thousand inhabitants on the nearby islands, nuclear weapons will be used due to the specifics, largely in densely populated areas and large agglomerations. Let's add here all the "gifts" from secondary damaging factors and we can safely say that a significant (if notОthe best) part of the earth's land will become unsuitable for living.
      1. cradle
        cradle 12 November 2018 14: 17
        0
        due to secondary factors, no more than 8,2% of the population will be destroyed, especially given the densely populated coastal zone.
  11. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 10 November 2018 10: 36
    0
    Within the framework of the doctrine of a preemptive strike, the Vanguards do not need so much. Exactly in the number of headquarters and command posts of the US strategic forces. It is a pity that the first is not, and the second is still not enough.