American magazine praised the Russian ICBM R-30 Bulava

The P-30 Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile, armed with Russian nuclear submarines, is one of the most impressive types weapons in a world capable of destroying entire cities. This writes the American portal We are the mighty.

A Russian sea-based Bulava ICBM can destroy entire cities in the United States, the author of the article writes. According to him, the rocket has a “huge” range of 8 thousands of kilometers, and it can carry from six to ten hypersonic maneuvering individual nuclear guidance blocks, with each of them having up to 150 kilotons of power. Warheads can overcome missile defense systems, including through the use of mock traps. At the same time, Russian submarines carry up to 16 of such missiles and one submarine in one gulp can destroy 72 targets the size of a city.

This Russian rocket may be the last thing you see

- the portal writes.

The author of the article calls Russian submarines armed with the Bulava ICBM a “recipe for absolute destruction” capable of razing entire regions of the United States.

P-30 "Bulava" (NATO classification - SS-NX-30) - a three-stage solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile. The standard carrier are the nuclear submarine missile cruisers of the strategic purpose of the 955 Borey project. It carries from eight to ten individual warhead warheads.

Comments

[Honest Citizen]

The Russian sea-based Bulava ICBM is capable of destroying entire cities in the United States, the author writes. According to him, the rocket has a "huge" range of 8 thousand kilometers, and it can carry from six to ten hypersonic maneuvering nuclear units of individual guidance

So what? Have you crap one's pants? Selling paper to sell?

At the same time, Russian submarines carry up to 16 of these missiles and one submarine in a full gulp can destroy 72 targets the size of a city.

Actually, two such missiles in Yellowstone - and you in general ... "hello to the beavers" ... "write letters" ... "and you don't have to shaggy grandma" ... (c) on the last.

[Starover_Z]

The author of the article calls Russian submarines armed with the Bulava ICBM a “recipe for absolute destruction” capable of razing entire regions of the United States.

Rate early! "Bulava" has not yet arrived and has not hit. Although really -

This Russian rocket may be the last thing you see

So guys, let's live together!

[marshes]

Quote: Honest Citizen

So what? Have you crap one's pants? Selling paper to sell?

They have a two-layer with a diverse smell, even lavender.
If they send an answer, well, the nearest weapons warehouse will be needed. By the way, you need to notice in advance. Yes, and warehouses with food.

[Honest Citizen]

Well, I, unlike you, do not strive to survive. This is not humor, I just live where, if they "cover" it, it would be better right away ... And so, well, otvetka ... I hope we can handle it, and with otvetka too ...
The main thing is that then no one "barks" ...

[marshes]

Quote: Honest Citizen

Well, I, unlike you, do not seek to survive

Well, at the beginning, say, you have met such people. Those who say they are the most tough in making decisions.
And in the USA and Russia and Kazakhstan there are survivors.

[Honest Citizen]

And in the USA and Russia and Kazakhstan there are survivors.

Alas for me .. I live where at least something from that side, but will fly .. so I do not build illusions.

[marshes]

Quote: Honest Citizen

Alas for me .. I live where at least something from that side, but will fly .. so I do not build illusions.

And my elder brother lives in Canada, he is a former Strategic Missile Forces, I have no desire that my relatives would be bent there.
Although a hundred pounds, who survives, will exterminate the perpetrators. On both sides.

[kventinasd]

Quote: marshes

Although a hundred pounds, who survives, will exterminate the perpetrators.

Two hundred pounds, of those who survive after this apocalypse, will be jealous of the dead.

[sir.jonn]

Quote: marshes

Quote: Honest Citizen

Alas for me .. I live where at least something from that side, but will fly .. so I do not build illusions.

And my elder brother lives in Canada, he is a former Strategic Missile Forces, I have no desire that my relatives would be bent there.
Although a hundred pounds, who survives, will exterminate the perpetrators. On both sides.

Not until the search for the culprits will be.

[Incvizitor]

It is good that the "perimeter" of any "relatives in Canada" will not be taken into account.

[Technologist]

Does it work, "Perimeter"?

[Rzzz]

Quote: marshes

And in the USA and Russia and Kazakhstan there are survivors.

Look at things realistically. These are not the ones who will survive. These are those who die a week later than the rest. But personally, I prefer it immediately and quickly. In principle, I live 10 km from the Kremlin, everything will be instantly with me and without any chance of learning.

[marshes]

Quote: rzzz

Look at things realistically. These are not the ones who will survive. These are those who die a week later than the rest. But personally, I prefer it immediately and quickly. In principle, I live 10 km from the Kremlin, everything will be instantly with me and without any chance of learning.

They can live and more.
Where I hunt, relatives can be said to live on land, although there is a chance that they will be covered by nuclear, winter. Although I know where it can be survived, they will have to turn to the Chinese, although the land is not theirs.

[Rzzz]

How long will they live without civilization? Without what they can’t do with their own hands? Metallurgy will be destroyed, forget about tools and weapons. Chemical industry enterprises too - ammunition means also in the store no longer buy. Oil refining will also be at zero, which means there will be no gas or gasoline. Clothes too.
Over the year, slide down to the primitive level. Bow and spear, sabers with swords made of secondary iron, which will be dofiga. Well steam traction will be if enough engineers survive.

[marshes]

Quote: rzzz

How long will they live without civilization? Without what they can’t do with their own hands? Metallurgy will be destroyed, forget about tools and weapons. Chemical industry enterprises too - ammunition means also in the store no longer buy. Oil refining will also be at zero, which means there will be no gas or gasoline. Clothes too. In a year, they will slide down to the primitive level. Bow and spear, sabers with swords made of secondary iron, which will be dofiga. Well steam boost will be if enough engineers survive

For being funny, at the moment the end of life is happening.
Where there are relatives, a river, barrels and fifty calves and a dozen or two sheep. They don’t even graze them, they come by evening. Especially heifers, you need to milk them.

[Tank hard]

Quote: marshes

They can live and more.
Where I hunt, relatives can be said to live on land, although there is a chance that they will be covered by nuclear, winter. Although I know where it can be survived, they will have to turn to the Chinese, although the land is not theirs.

Read the books "Rat Tower" and "Rat Race", by Pavel Darts, can be downloaded for free on the net on your phone. It very interestingly describes the situation of the end of civilization just in a certain crisis, even without a nuclear war. Maybe you will stop writing about survival after a nuclear conflict.

[Warrior-80]

But this is a question, after all, Moscow is the most protected city and I do not think that everything is tied to it, communication centers and decision centers

[Ryaruav]

at the expense of yellowstone, you take an interest in nothing catastrophic there can be (some kind of db-102 launched a nonsense on the Internet and those who didn’t read this garbage picked up well, and specifically on the topic, do you personally think that the rockets are trident on the drum? do you have such a deformed protected crap one?

[Honest Citizen]

at the expense of yellowstone you take an interest nothing catasrophic there can be

let’s do it ... experiment ...

[Oyo Sarkazmi]

No use. The lava center is there for 30 km. You can’t get through any bomb.
But Naples specifically puffs. He stands on the edge of the huge caldera of a supervolcano. In the 50s of the last century, the embankment raised by 5 meters in a few days, sulfur dioxide fell out of the ground a few blocks away, they are now non-residential.

[Ezekiel 25-17]

Quote: Honest Citizen

at the expense of yellowstone you take an interest nothing catasrophic there can be

let’s do it ... experiment ...

There is a volcano Kumbre Vieja read at your leisure.

[MMX]

No, they also have something to answer no less effective.

[Vladimir_R]

Quote: Honest Citizen

Actually, two such missiles in Yellowstone - and to you in general ... "hello to beavers" ... "write letters" ...

In fact, about Yellowstone and the attack on it with nuclear weapons in order to activate it - this is a common misconception, it is not clear why it is being broadcast.
Firstly, even a couple of hundred megatons, even with underground blasting, can make a funnel of 200 meters, the thickness of the bark of the Yellowstone caldera is about 2 meters.
Secondly, most (almost all domestic) warheads of strategic carriers are "weapons of retaliation", their task is to inflict as much damage as possible, this is achieved by detonating at a certain height (about a kilometer), imagine the ball yourself, the center of which is the warhead, obviously that the hemisphere has the maximum area.
And thirdly. Think about why planning a strike on a volcano with a dubious result. Isn’t it easier to strike at nuclear power plants and hydroelectric power stations?

[Warrior-80]

It’s easier then to place charges on a fire arc at the bottom of the ocean, and immediately wash off half of Europe, though the result is not predictable, we can all go to the bottom

[Tibidokh]

Quote: Honest Citizen

Actually, two such missiles in Yellowstone - and you in general ... "hello to the beavers" ... "write letters" ... "and you don't have to shaggy grandma" ... (c) on the last.

[U-58]

And if in return they shuranut a small charge of 10 Kt into the northern part of the Black Sea, having arranged an explosion at a depth of 300-600 meters?
It seems to us, little or little?
The release of billions of cubic meters of hydrogen sulfide into the atmosphere will result in numerous volumetric calls of unpredictable power, coastal territories (including the Black Sea Fleet base) will suffocate from the absence of oxygen and burn out from fires.
I don’t even consider the tsunami theme ..
The country as a whole will survive such a scenario.
But will the yellow stone volcano survive the world?

[cradle]

Why two? The bottom of the rocket with multiple warheads behind the eyes and ears, for greetings to the beavers.

[demo]

Almost 37 tons started so fast.
And disappeared into the clouds.
If you didn’t understand what would follow, then I would have seized enthusiasm.

[Karabas]

Almost 37 tons started so fast.
And disappeared into the clouds.
If you didn’t understand what would follow, then I would have seized enthusiasm.

And will something follow after that?

[demo]

Millions of people to ashes.
This is not for you
You need to think.

[Karabas]

Millions of people to ashes.
This is not laughing
You need to think. hi

Is that bad? Very good for the global ecology. And the "civilized" countries will no longer have to break their hearts, suffer every day, we will stop groaning on a universal scale once and for all.

[demo]

Okay.
God is your judge.

[Karabas]

Okay.
God is your judge.

Yes, actually I’m not going to, but let them be afraid, otherwise they have completely lost their fear lately.

[NEXUS]

Well, Sineva (Liner) has a longer range and is the best among liquid-fuel ICBMs. So besides the Clubs, there are other means of delivery.

[Karabas]

Well, Sineva (Liner) has a longer range and is the best among liquid-fuel ICBMs. So besides the Clubs, there are other means of delivery.

No need to talk about Sineva, otherwise an attack of diarrhea can occur among adherents of world democracy.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Karabas

No need to talk about Sineva, otherwise an attack of diarrhea can occur among adherents of world democracy.

When Sarmat takes up duty, hysteria will increase at times.

[Vladimir_R]

Quote: NEXUS

When Sarmat takes up duty, hysteria will increase at times.

Nothing will grow. "Sarmat" comes into service not to scare the enemy, but because of the need to replace the R-36, which will soon become impossible to extend its service life.

[Vladimir_R]

Quote: NEXUS

Well, Sineva (Liner) has a longer range and is the best among liquid-fuel ICBMs.

Maybe she is the best. But it is the best because the USSR (and today's Russia) has always lagged behind in the field of solid fuels.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Vladimir_R

But it is the best because the USSR (and today's Russia) has always lagged behind in the field of solid fuels.

There were different views on this. We preferred the direction of liquid fuel, although solid fuel operations were carried out, and for ICBM mattresses they were made on solid fuel. The only minus in liquid ICBMs is storage. But ... we look at the Governor, who is already 40 years on duty, so what?

[Vladimir_R]

Quote: NEXUS

The only negative with liquid ICBMs is storage.

Yes, not really. This is far from the only minus. Although, of course, there are pluses.

Quote: NEXUS

But ... we look at the Governor, who has been on duty for 40 years, so what?

What? "Voivoda" is used as a carrier of civilian cargo ("Rokot", google if you are interested). The accident rate there is disappointing. Agree, if you carry a weapon with you, say, a pistol, then you expect that it will "work" at the right time. Will you carry a self-defense pistol that fires 7-8 times out of 10? I doubt something. But there is no choice yet.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Vladimir_R

Yes, not really. This is far from the only minus. Although, of course, there are pluses.

Seriously? What are the other disadvantages of liquid versus solid fuel? And after google the benefits of liquid, IF YOU ARE INTERESTING.

Quote: Vladimir_R

What? "Voivoda" is used as a carrier of civilian cargo ("Rokot", google if you are interested).

The voivode was created as a military weapon primarily. And today, it is the most powerful and long-range ICBM in the world. At the same time, the payload carries in 10 tons. Solid fuel mattresses are even close to nothing like this. I'm not talking about the most reliable ICBM in the world, Stiletto, or according to our UR-100N.

[Vladimir_R]

Quote: NEXUS

Seriously? What are the other disadvantages of liquid versus solid fuel?

Absolutely. Toxicity, weight (including the total weight of the units), dimensions, complexity of maintenance and, more importantly, reliability. Do you think it is normal to keep people (who, by the way, need to be trained for a long time) on a floating vessel with tons of incompletely stable reagents behind a thin partition and tons of pressure overboard? Environmental friendliness. The complexity of disposal. I can still throw you cons, but I think this is futile.

Quote: NEXUS

Solid fuel mattresses are even close to nothing like this.

And they don’t need it. They have a different doctrine. Really, looking at the US space program, do you seriously believe that they could not cram 20 tons into the booster rocket? Despite the fact that with solid fuel they are all right, given the Space Shuttle program.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Vladimir_R

Absolutely. Toxicity, weight (including the total weight of the units), dimensions, complexity of maintenance and, more importantly, reliability.

That's about reliability is a masterpiece. It’s not for nothing that I mentioned the Stylet ... no mattress ICBM in terms of reliability is even standing next to it. Well, what’s important for you to crow, right?)

Quote: Vladimir_R

They have a different doctrine.

Seriously? And which one? Just do not talk about the defense, otherwise I'll tear your stomach off you. And by the way, which ICBM was the last to be modernized and when not to remind?

[Vladimir_R]

Quote: NEXUS

Well, what’s important for you to crow, right?

Please choose an expression.

Quote: NEXUS

I didn’t mention Stilets for nothing

Yes, not in vain. But if you had googled more carefully, you would have learned that the UR-100 rocket is the RS-18 (RS36 is its modernization), and, I really was not accurate, it was the RS 18 that was an extremely unreliable rocket. It is not and cannot be any "most reliable". You definitely haven't Google "Rokot".

Quote: NEXUS

Seriously? And which one? Just do not about defense

I won't. She's offensive. The US doctrine is based on a preemptive strike, they need precision, their missiles will "hit" the covers of our silos. Our doctrine (it goes back to the USSR) is defensive, we will respond to cities and especially important objects, our warheads have no "jewelry" accuracy.

Quote: NEXUS

And by the way, which ICBM was the last to be modernized and when not to remind?

I do not follow. I have no idea. I do not live in the USA, the fate of my homeland is important to me.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Vladimir_R

Yes, not in vain. But if you googled more carefully, you would know that the UR-100 rocket is the PC-18

You and your Google no longer write such heresy. I told you about ur-xnumxН or PC-18А.

The UR-100N UTTX missile system is extremely reliable - conducted
more than 150 test and combat training launches, of which only three were unsuccessful.

Educate a young man.
UR-100H even by mattresses is recognized as the MOST RELIABLE ICBM in the world.

[Vladimir_R]

Quote: NEXUS

Educate a young man.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%A0-100%D0%9D

[NEXUS]

Quote: Vladimir_R

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%A0-100%D0%9D

You don’t bring more links from Wiki here, they’ll laugh ... yeah. I repeat- No solid-fuel mattress ICBMs are close in reliability to the UR-100N. And because it is capable of hitting both 1000 km and 11000 km (almost), the mattresses insisted on removing it from the arsenal very first thing.

[Ascetic]

Quote: NEXUS

mattresses first of all very tearfully insisted on removing it from service.

They asked, but didn’t take it off ... 5A! 5 in 1995 yes, but 15A35 is numb ...
31 sets 15С300 (ICBM 15A35 in TPK without warhead and control system). Russia bought from Ukraine for gas debts in 2002-2004. 30 such kits, stored in warehouses in the empty state.
They are the bearers of the Avangard Design Bureau until the adoption of the more modern RK Sarmat

[NEXUS]

Quote: Ascetic

They are the bearers of the Avangard Design Bureau until the adoption of the more modern RK Sarmat

All right. For, nefig.

[mikle1999]

Tridents have a series of 100+ successful launches in a row.

[asv363]

Quote: Vladimir_R

"Voevoda" is used as a carrier of civilian cargo ("Rokot"

The roar is the UR 100 UTTH.

[U-58]

Rokot is UR-100.
From the Voivode, they masters the cosmic Dnieper.
Their weight categories are different ..
The Dnieper, if there is such a desire, can throw a light load on Mars

[lucul]

But it is the best because the USSR (and today's Russia) has always lagged behind in the field of solid fuels.

The USSR lagged behind.
Russia is not. As soon as the God's chosen ones (the majority) dumped the promised land into their land, the Russian chemists developed a new fuel for rockets that was not inferior in efficiency to amers.
What you can see for yourself by comparing Caliber and Tomogavk.

[Vladimir_R]

Quote: lucul

The USSR lagged behind.
Russia is not. As soon as the God's chosen ones (the majority) dumped the promised land into their land, the Russian chemists developed a new fuel for rockets that was not inferior in efficiency to amers.
What you can see for yourself by comparing Caliber and Tomogavk.

Your comment is so funny that I will give you a plus, although I do not put any pluses or minuses to anyone ... You have raised my spirits and I consider it my duty to mark you.

[voyaka uh]

I also liked his post :)))

[Ascetic]

Quote: Vladimir_R

The USSR (and today's Russia) has always lagged behind in the field of solid fuels.

This is not the case, initially the United States went along the path of turbojet engines, they had Titanium -2 the only ICBMs with rocket engines.
At that time, in the 50s and 60s we did not have the necessary technological base and it was too expensive for a devastated post-war country, therefore, realizing the advantages of solid-state rocket launchers for ICBMs, we first went along the path of creating a combined-type ICBM with a solid rocket launcher in the first stage and a rocket engine in the second stage. The use of the ampouled liquid second stage made it possible to preserve all the main advantages of the solid-fuel engine and, at the same time, introduce the launch mass of the rocket into the permissible limits. Such a combined missile could be used as part of a mobile complex on a caterpillar track, and subsequently, with the improvement of the characteristics of solid fuels, it was possible to replace the liquid stage with a solid-fuel one. By the way, the Americans never created a single sane RK with an RDT missile in a mobile version. In 1967, we already had a RT-20P mobile missile system on a caterpillar track with a combined small-sized 8K99 ICBM placed in a transport and launch container. The missile was made in tandem. The basis of the first stage was a solid fuel engine 15D15, created in the Design Bureau "South".
At that time, the original scheme for launching a rocket from TPK was developed for the first time, which later became known as "Mortar" start.[/ b], which is still used in all our mobile complexes

.Although the missile system was not adopted for a number of reasons, the design and technological solutions developed during its creation and field-tested were subsequently used in the development of new generations of combat missiles. Some of them have become [b] classics of world rocket science, far ahead of their time.

[quote] [/ quote] The Americans didn’t have anything like that back then. Therefore, the lag was very conditional and temporary \ until about the mid-70s Peacekeeper exceeded all our analogues \.
Table according to R. McNamara
Date (year) of testing or adoption

Weapons American Soviet
Atomic bomb 1945 1949
Intercontinental bomber 1948 1955
Jet bomber 1951 1954
Hydrogen bomb 1952* 1953
ICBM 1958 1957
Photographic reconnaissance satellites 1960 1962
ICBMs on submarines 1960 1964
Solid propellant ICBM 1962 1966[u] [/ u]
PRO 1974 1966
Anti-satellite weapons 1963 1968
MIRVed ICBMs 1970 1975
Now, if we are not ahead of TT technologies, then at least we are not behind, this is obvious by many indirect signs, for this topic is very closed.

Marching LRE 15D12 second stage ICBM 8K99

[cradle]

there would be people "good", but how to deliver, we'll figure out.

[Mountain shooter]

Are you awake? And they saw ... The obvious. The only country in the world that can really send the United States to the Stone Age is Russia. Therefore, they will "sanction" us and in every possible way spread rot, deprive us of this and that, try to destroy us from within and from without, and at the heart of all this is fear! They could have "swallowed up" and strangled them in their arms, and everything went to that ... And then out of nowhere, GDP. And he broke the game with the striped ears. Everything else, what we see around - IMHO, derivatives from this.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

The only country in the world that can really send the United States into the Stone Age is Russia.

Not in the Stone Age, but to destroy America in general as a mainland. Because besides our nuclear weapons, in the United States there are chemical plants, nuclear power plants, dams, etc. and so on ...

[Vladimir_R]

Quote: NEXUS

Not in the Stone Age, but to destroy America in general as a mainland.

This is also a common misconception. All the world's nuclear weapons taken together are not capable of destroying America as a continent. And Russia has the ability to "bomb" the United States only in the "Middle Ages", it cannot wait about any Stone Age (if only because of the scattering of the production of American goods across the countries of the world). Contamination of the territory is a temporary problem, even the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone took less than 20 years to become habitable, and there was a release, I remind you. After nuclear weapons strike the cities, it will be possible to live in them (with their own problems, of course) in a month.

[max702]

Quote: Vladimir_R

After the nuclear weapons strike in the cities, it will be possible to live in them (with their problems, of course) a month later.

And the collapsed blocks of nuclear power plants will not fonit? What will happen when the nuclear stockpile falls into an operating nuclear power plant? Or to the dam of a hydroelectric power station? Such key points were calculated long ago and entered into rocket computers .. At Chernobyl, one block fell apart, and if all four? Would there be life in Europe or not?

[Karabas]

And then out of nowhere, GDP. And broke the band-eared game.

And he offered the hypersound to them poor, otherwise they would have nothing to burn us with.

[Sancho_SP]

Well the buoy knows him.

The mace itself is rather mediocre.

Another thing is that, firstly, it is enough to complete the tasks. And, secondly, it is inexpensive, crawls into modern small boats and it is.

[Local from the Volga]

"Murzilka", I was told in confidence, is preparing an article about "Sarmat" !!!

[APASUS]

This is precisely why we are not interested in the Americans as a military adversary. This is why they will offer us to listen to NGO members, study with liberals, love gays and transgender people. They add other values ​​to us, change our historical and national code. We will grow a new generation that remembers its history, its ancestors

[Ros 56]

And as you striped thought, this is not for you to shy away from the oceans with your aircraft carriers. Suddenly a magic mace and kirdyk will fly to you.

[Old26]

Another "horror story" in the US edition and, as always, nameless.

According to him, the rocket has a "huge" range of 8 thousand kilometers,

And then what is considered a "not huge" radius? According to the treaties, the standard range for SLBMs is defined as 9200 km or 5000 nautical miles. Depending on the load, it can be either more or less

and it can carry from six to ten hypersonic maneuvering nuclear units of individual guidance, while the power of each of them is up to 150 kilotons.

Well, where can the "cretyanin go" now? How without hypersonic and maneuvering. Only hypersonic and maneuvering are applicable. Nonsense that they (maneuvers) are not in service. The Russians put them on the Bulava secretly, on a dark night ...

6 to 10? Probably the authors, albeit anonymous of this opus, adhere to the Russian proverb "do not believe your eyes" for 100500%. If you believed your eyes, then looking at the photograph of the degree of breeding "Bulava" would see there

total SIX LANDING PLACES under war blocks

Warheads can overcome missile defense systems, including through the use of mock traps.

Such rumors are circulating. They are constructed based on what they will overcome, or rather try to overcome the missile defense system.
Trap layouts for "normal" people are called "false targets"

At the same time, Russian submarines carry up to 16 of these missiles and one submarine in a full gulp can destroy 72 targets the size of a city.

Well, multiplying 6 warheads by 16 missiles, we get only 96 targets that can hit one boat
Can it hit 72 targets with 96 war blocks ?? Elementary. But that's just it will not be 72 targets the size of a city. For the area of ​​continuous destruction for 150 kt of charge is 4,5 square kilometers with a ground explosion and 7 square kilometers with an external one. My city where I live has an area of ​​171,7 square meters. kilometers or 276,689 square meters. kilometers within the urban district. Next, break how many warheads are needed to turn into ruins and destroy my hometown, not to mention 72 targets the size of a city

R-30 "Bulava" (according to NATO classification - SS-NX-30) is a three-stage solid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missile.

Okay, it's forgivable for our experts to make mistakes in Western names. But it is unforgivable for them to make such mistakes themselves ... In-1, the index which contains the letter X (SS-NX-30) is for missiles that have not been put into service, but only tested. "Bulava" has already been adopted, so according to NATO classification it should have the SS-N-30 index, not SS-NX-30.
In addition, this index has been replaced for several years now and the Bulava carries the NATO index - SS-N-32

Quote: Oyo Sarkazmi

No use. The lava center is there for 30 km. You can’t get through any bomb.
But Naples specifically puffs. He stands on the edge of the huge caldera of a supervolcano. In the 50s of the last century, the embankment raised by 5 meters in a few days, sulfur dioxide fell out of the ground a few blocks away, they are now non-residential.

According to various estimates, from 8 to 16 kilometers deep

Quote: Vladimir_R

In fact, about Yellowstone and the attack on it with nuclear weapons in order to activate it - this is a common misconception, it is not clear why it is being broadcast.
Firstly, even a couple of hundred megatons, even with underground blasting, can make a funnel of 200 meters, the thickness of the bark of the Yellowstone caldera is about 2 meters.

I will repeat the most common figures of the thickness of the arch. From 8 to 16 km. A charge of 100 mt exploded on the soil gives a funnel up to 400 meters deep, depending on the soil. By placing another 100 megaton charge at the bottom of the funnel, we will deepen it by another 400 meters. In order to break through a vault of 8 km, approximately 20 charges of 100 mt are required, blown up sequentially to get a deep funnel. If the arch is 16 km thick, 40 charges will be required. Here are just two BUT.
1.no 100 mt of charges
2. They cannot be "put" with such precision

Quote: NEXUS

Well, Sineva (Liner) has a longer range and is the best among liquid-fuel ICBMs. So besides the Clubs, there are other means of delivery.

Sineva's range is about the same as that of Bulava, maybe a little more

[Vladimir_R]

Quote: Old26

I will repeat the most common figures of the thickness of the arch. 8 to 16 km

Yes, it may well be. I met the smallest figure (and relied on it) at 2 km. If 8-16, then even more so.

Quote: Old26

A charge of 100 mt exploded on the soil gives a funnel up to 400 meters deep, depending on the soil.

I do not agree with this. Where do these numbers come from?

[Mimoprohodil]

The diameter of the funnel is 5 times greater than its depth. 100 megatons will make a funnel 10-40 km in diameter?

[Andrey NM]

Quote: Old26

Sineva's range is about the same as that of Bulava, maybe a little more

Sineva has a maximum range of 11547 km. It can carry a payload of 2800 kg. Up to 10 "carrots". Product weight 40,2 tons. The mace carries 1100 kg with a maximum range of 9000 km and a mass of 36 tons. Trident 2 weighs 60,2 tons (in other sources 59 tons), throws 800 kg at 11000 km and 2800 kg at 9000 km. Do you feel the difference?
During the operation since 1983 of Sineva and its modifications, there was not a single accident or incident caused by the rocket. There was an accident on the first Behemoth, but there were non-standard products, only the first stage was working, the rest was filled with "slurry", by weight and density suitable for the components, but the chemical properties were not taken into account, which is why the accident occurred. Sineva has no equal in terms of energy and mass characteristics.
Disposal has long been worked out and is not a big problem. The rocket is refueled once for the entire service life, which is more than 25 years. I read somewhere that the shelf life of components with proper storage is up to 50 years.
Solid fuel eventually becomes blasting. Missiles are not safe either. Remember at least the accident on the 941 project. By the way, the rocket on the Shark (product 3M-65) weighed as much as 92 tons in the heaviest configuration, and flew 9000 km with a head of 2500 kg.
As you can see, "liquid" and "solid" missiles have their pros and cons. By the way, the Makeyevites have long been developing a liquid-propellant rocket with a "dry" launch. And the Bulava actually flew only when the Makeevites were involved in the work. In fact, this missile appeared as a result of the stormy activities of Urinson, Solomonov, Dvorkin and Defense Minister Sergeev. They began to drag the financial blanket over themselves.

[capsid]

We have not only good rockets, and vodka knocking down And so .. The campaign will not stop at one US missile defense., They will try to get to the R-30 carrier. Their portals and media can only talk about Russia, that is: pain, suffering and tears, and in the West people believe in it. .

[Do not care]

Quote: Ros 56

And as you striped thought, this is not for you to shy away from the oceans with your aircraft carriers. Suddenly a magic mace and kirdyk will fly to you.

It’s so striped and did not guess without this article what actually is in Russia. Finally, their eyes opened.

VO introduced a Very Free and Selective Translation with the addition of gag. For example, there is not a word about hypersonic blocks to the mace. But there is a brief assessment of other programs: su-57, T-14, Petrel. In fact, if there is a desire to discuss this article, it is better to read it in the original

[Cympak]

Two questions:
"Bulava" officially put into service?
Estimated value of KVO of individual guidance blocks?

[Old26]

Quote: Cympak

Two questions:
"Bulava" officially put into service?
Estimated value of KVO of individual guidance blocks?

It seems that in June 2018 it was officially adopted. Estimated value of KVO - from 150 to 250 meters

[storm]

The basis of the American strategic forces are ballistic missiles placed on submarines (SLBMs). Each Ohio-type SSBN is equipped with a Trident-24 2 SLBM (D 5). At the moment, the naval component of the US strategic nuclear forces are 14 nuclear submarines (SSBNs) with 336 SLBMs.
In accordance with the current WWS treaty, missiles in submarines cannot carry more than 8 warheads.

- Trident-2 (D5) has a maximum range of 11 km versus 300 km at Bulava;
- at Trident-2, individual guidance blocks with a capacity of 475 kt versus 150 kt at Bulava;
Even a simple comparison shows that our latest Bulava ICBMs are significantly inferior in terms of the basic parameters of Trident-2 (D 5)
The Sineva is similar in its basic characteristics to the Trident-2 ICBM.

- US strategic nuclear forces have 336 Trident-2 SLBMs (D5)
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces 176 SLBMs of 4 types on 3 types of carriers: 64 Bulava ICBMs on 4 Borei nuclear submarines, 96 Sineva / Liner ICBMs on 6 nuclear submarines of project 667 BDRM plus the last nuclear submarine pr 667 BDR "Kalmar" with 16 R-29 missiles.

Considering the two-fold superiority of the United States in the number of carriers and the three-fold superiority in terms of power of thrown blocks over the Bulava, the overall superiority of the US strategic nuclear forces over the Russian strategic nuclear forces is three-fold.
Somehow not very fun from such a comparison .....

[Evil echo]

Katz offers a datsat?

[cyborg]

Parity. However, the United States is densely populated and more urbanized with a smaller territory. So they will get more. But enough for everyone.

[Serg4545]

// Trident-2 (D5) has a maximum range of 11 km versus 300 km at Bulava;
- at Trident-2, individual guidance blocks with a capacity of 475 kt versus 150 kt at Bulava;
Even a simple comparison shows that our latest Bulava ICBMs are significantly inferior in the basic parameters of Trident-2 (D 5) //

But nothing that the Mace is 2 times lighter than the Trident?

// US strategic nuclear forces have 336 Trident-2 SLBMs (D5) 
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces 176 SLBMs of 4 types on 3 types of carriers: 64 Bulava ICBMs on 4 Borei nuclear submarines, 96 Sineva / Liner ICBMs on 6 nuclear submarines of project 667 BDRM plus the last nuclear submarine pr 667 BDR "Kalmar" with 16 R-29 missiles.

Considering the two-fold superiority of the United States in the number of carriers and the three-fold superiority in terms of power of thrown blocks over the Bulava, the overall superiority of the US strategic nuclear forces over the Russian strategic nuclear forces is three-fold.
Somehow not very fun from such a comparison ..... //

Her, actually it's fun))
Compare only the marine components of the strategic nuclear forces of Russia and the United States and draw conclusions about the backlog of Russian strategic nuclear forces in general!
I want to remind you that traditionally in Russia, the strongest component of the strategic nuclear forces is the ground! And there, with the number of missiles and with the range and quantity and power of the BB, everything is great!
So if you compare ALL the strategic nuclear forces of Russia and the United States, then everything is exactly the same.

[Pavel57]

The mace as a weapon is sufficient to deter the adversary, only he will try to sink the boat before starting the launch. The success rate is 50%.

[Evil echo]

... she can six to ten hypersonic individual maneuvering nuclear units of individual guidance, while the power of each of them is up to 150 kilotons ...

.
Something new, but what about Vanguard?

[storm]

Firstly, all warheads of all ICBMs are HYPERSONIC !!!
is this news for you ?;
Secondly, do not confuse the individual guidance blocks of ICBMs existing since the 70s and the maneuvering avant-garde blocks.

[storm]

First, all warheads of ICBMs are hypersonic !!!
this is physics.
Secondly, do not confuse individual guidance blocks that have existed for 50 years and the Vanguard maneuvering blocks !!!
this is a materiel, learn ...

[Evil echo]

Thank you for prompting, but why teach? Where is the ICBM and where am I.

[srha]

As always, the representative of a potential enemy, to put it mildly, is disingenuous, praising a weak missile. It is considered worse than the American Trident II, and definitely worse than the Russian Sineva. At least the "Sineva" and the throw weight is more than twice as large and the range is 1,4 times greater (11500 km, which makes the airspace not only think about the northern direction).

[Simon]

Beautifully let's go, already the soul rejoices!

[Old26]

Quote: Vladimir_R

I do not agree with this. Where do these numbers come from?

A table from some reference on WMD.

Quote: assault

- Trident-2 (D5) has a maximum range of 11 km versus 300 km at Bulava;

Invalid comparison. You take the maximum range from the Trident and compare it to the standard range of the Mace

Quote: assault

Trident-2 has individual guidance blocks with a capacity of 475 kt versus 150 kt at Bulava;

Warheads W-88 / Mk-5 were produced in a total of 398 units. Most of the W-76 / Mk-4 blocks that are on the Tridents have a capacity of 100 kt. So on most Tridents there are even blocks with less power than Bulava

Quote: assault

Even a simple comparison shows that our latest Bulava ICBMs are significantly inferior in terms of the basic parameters of Trident-2 (D 5)

Are they inferior in what? With the maximum load, Trident has a range of 7400 km / Da, while it has a megatonnage of 1,4 mt at 100 kt for the W-76 block or 3,8 mt against 600 kt for the Bulava. Taking into account the fact that now on the Tridents there are either 4 W-88 blocks or from 4 to 8 W-76 blocks, then in general the megatonnage of the Bulava is even higher than that of the Trident with a relatively comparable range (8200 and 9200 km )

Quote: assault

- US strategic nuclear forces have 336 Trident-2 SLBMs (D5) -.

280. For several years now, 4 silos have been deactivated on the Ohio boats and now the boat carries 280 SLBMs (14 boats with 20 SLBMs each).

Quote: assault

-SYAS Russia 176 SLBMs of 4 types on 3 types of carriers: 64 Bulava ICBMs on 4 Borey nuclear submarines, 96 Sineva / Liner ICBMs on 6 Project 667 BDRM nuclear submarines plus the last one Nuclear submarine pr 667 BDR "Kalmar" with 16 R-29 missiles.

Actually, at the present time there are 3 boats of the "Borey" type, 6 boats 667BDRM and 1 boat of the project 667BDR. A total of 10 boats, 16 SLBMs each

Quote: assault

Considering the two-fold superiority of the United States in the number of carriers and the three-fold superiority in terms of power of thrown blocks over the Bulava, the overall superiority of the US strategic nuclear forces over the Russian strategic nuclear forces is three-fold.
Somehow not very fun from such a comparison .....

There is no two-cut advantage in BB, the advantage is 1,75 times. Three-fold overweight in terms of the power of the thrown BBs only in relation to the W-88 block. In relation to the W-76 blocks, the power of the Bulava blocks is one third more. so not everything here is unambiguous ...

The overall superiority in US strategic nuclear forces over Russia's strategic nuclear forces is generally not.
As of March 2019, the US strategic nuclear forces possessed 656 units of deployed carriers versus 524 carriers in Russia (1,25: 1 ratio). By the number of deployed BBs, the ratio is 1,1: 1 in favor of Russia

Quote: Vladimir_R

Maybe she is the best. But it is the best because the USSR (and today's Russia) has always lagged behind in the field of solid fuels.

For a long time, Russia really lagged behind the United States as a solid fuel. This lag lasted until about the end of the 80s. On the ICBMs 15ZH60 and 15ZH61, the formulation and quality of solid fuels was already comparable to that in the United States. Lag if there is only in the technology of replacing fuel. We have not yet made this replacement serial

Quote: Evil Echo

... she can six to ten hypersonic individual maneuvering nuclear units of individual guidance, while the power of each of them is up to 150 kilotons ...

.
Something new, but what about Vanguard?

Do not pay attention. so that now yes the "expert" does not write about hypersonic warheads "- this cannot be. Although they have always been hypersonic ICBMs. As the current expert cannot but write, the blocks are" maneuvering. "This is against their nature

Quote: Vladimir_R

What? "Voivoda" is used as a carrier of civilian cargo ("Rokot", google if you are interested). The accident rate there is disappointing. Agree, if you carry a weapon with you, say, a pistol, then you expect that it will "work" at the right time. Will you carry a self-defense pistol that fires 7-8 times out of 10? I doubt something. But there is no choice yet.

"Voevoda" was never used and is not used as a civilian carrier. "Rokot" is a conversion version of the 15Zh35 rocket (aka UR-100N UTTH, aka SS-19). For some time, conversion carrier rockets were used, created on the basis of the R-36M UTTH ICBM. They were called "Dnepr". 22 launches were carried out, of which 1 was emergency (accident rate 4,5%)
"Rokot" was launched 33 times, of which two were emergency launches. Three launches of the "Strela" LV based on the same ICBM were successful. So the total accident rate is 5,5%. I do not see here a "disappointing percentage" of accidents

[storm]

Actually, there are currently 3 boats of the "Borei" type,

strategic nuclear-powered submarine missile cruiser of modified project 09552 (code "Borey-A") "Prince Vladimir" (serial number 204) is at the final stage of testing and will be put into service by the end of 19g.

[Mantrid]

fine!!! this sea * sausage * is there so that the stripes do not relax the rolls and keep them in good shape

[Old26]

Quote: srha

At least the "Sineva" has more than twice the throw weight and 1,4 times more range (11500 km, which makes the VP think not only about the northern direction).

It all depends on what kind of throw we mean. If the maximum, then it is of the same order as the "Trident". If it's standard, then the throw weight of our "Sineva" is slightly more, by about 300 kg
Range again. With a maximum throw weight, the Trident's range is 7800 km. Our "Sineva" with a maximum throw weight has a range of about 6900 km. With a standard weight, "Sineva" has a range of 8300 km.
Trident has about the same (EMNIP 8100 km). The maximum range for Sineva is 11547 km, for Trident is 11300 km. But both "Sineva" and "Trident" in this case fly with 1-2 warheads

[srha]

Quote: Old26

It all depends on what kind of weight we have in mind.

Hmm ... Mace for 11 thousand km at least once, even with one head? And that's all. The rest of your words are rubbish (demagogy), hiding the inferiority of this missile (Bulava) in comparison with its competitors. And how much it costs the people and allows you to save a potential enemy (by reducing the launch areas due to the short-range) and no words.

[Operator]

Quote: lucul

The USSR lagged behind

At the end of the 1980-s, the USSR took the lead in solid rocket fuels - the Soviet composition of ammonium dinitramide, aluminum hydride and HMX (the third stages of the RT-23 UTTX and P-39 UTTX) in specific impulse covers the American composition from ammonium perchlorate like a bull-sheep , aluminum and HMX (Trident-2).

Another thing is that the technology for the production of TRT based on ammonium dinitramide was mastered only at one enterprise - the Pavlograd chemical plant, after the collapse of the USSR it remained in Ukraine and was lost due to the conversion of the enterprise to the production of household chemicals. That is why the development of the Russian SLBM "Bark" was stopped.

Apparently, in Russia, the restoration of the technology for the production of TRT based on ammonium dinitramide was completed after the adoption of the Yars ICBM and the Bulava SLBM.

[Chaldon48]

You can understand the Americans, it’s very unpleasant to live in a target city.

[E.S.]

Quote: Vladimir_R

Quote: NEXUS

Not in the Stone Age, but to destroy America in general as a mainland.

This is also a common misconception. All the world's nuclear weapons taken together are not capable of destroying America as a continent. And Russia has the ability to "bomb" the United States only in the "Middle Ages", it cannot wait about any Stone Age (if only because of the scattering of the production of American goods across the countries of the world). Contamination of the territory is a temporary problem, even the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone took less than 20 years to become habitable, and there was a release, I remind you. After nuclear weapons strike the cities, it will be possible to live in them (with their own problems, of course) in a month.

It's funny. After a nuclear strike on the United States, "US production scattered all over the world" will continue to work for the good of the United States, and nothing will happen to the dollar as a payment unit, and so on, and so forth.

[E.S.]

Quote: Operator

Quote: lucul

The USSR lagged behind

At the end of the 1980-s, the USSR took the lead in solid rocket fuels - the Soviet composition of ammonium dinitramide, aluminum hydride and HMX (the third stages of the RT-23 UTTX and P-39 UTTX) in specific impulse covers the American composition from ammonium perchlorate like a bull-sheep , aluminum and HMX (Trident-2).

Another thing is that the technology for the production of TRT based on ammonium dinitramide was mastered only at one enterprise - the Pavlograd chemical plant, after the collapse of the USSR it remained in Ukraine and was lost due to the conversion of the enterprise to the production of household chemicals. That is why the development of the Russian SLBM "Bark" was stopped.

Apparently, in Russia, the restoration of the technology for the production of TRT based on ammonium dinitramide was completed after the adoption of the Yars ICBM and the Bulava SLBM.

Judging by the fact that the Grad flew further, a long-range Cornet appeared and the 80 mm NAR received a heavier warhead at the same range - it is obvious that something happened with solid fuel after the collapse of the USSR

[Operator]

Ballistite fuel (nitrocellulose solution in nitroglycerin) is used in the Grad RS, Kornet ATM and NAR, rather than mixed fuel (powdered fuel and oxidizer in a polymer binder), as in ICBMs and SLBMs.

Modern energy compositions of ballistic fuel are created due to the addition of phlegmatized explosives - hexogen.

[U-58]

Not being an expert in the field of ICBMs, I do not understand the Americans' "admiration" for Bulava.
Couldn't previous generations of missiles have done the same damage to the States?
With the advent of thermonuclear warheads, warheads have become incomparably lighter and more compact ...
Again, the theme of a breakthrough missile defense ..
Both at us and at them missile defense covers isolated parts of the territory.
And if not a "classical" war is being waged, when the first target of nuclear weapons is similar means of attacking the enemy, but a war aimed at total destruction of the enemy, then overcoming missile defense (in its current state) is not a priority task.
Destruction of infrastructure not covered by means of missile defense - large cities, industrial areas, hydroelectric power stations, nuclear power plants - will cause unacceptable, total damage.
The question remains of getting repeated strikes from necromancers from zones located under the missile defense umbrella.
But even in this case, we have a good chance of inflicting the same "response".
In any case, after 3-4 days the war will be over.
In this case, no one will know who won ..

[Spring fluff]

Do not exaggerate the capabilities of nuclear weapons. Both Russia and the USA will receive significant damage, but no more
https://a-nalgin.livejournal.com/1513732.html

[E.S.]

Quote: Operator

Ballistite fuel (nitrocellulose solution in nitroglycerin) is used in the Grad RS, Kornet ATM and NAR, rather than mixed fuel (powdered fuel and oxidizer in a polymer binder), as in ICBMs and SLBMs.

Modern energy compositions of ballistic fuel are created due to the addition of phlegmatized explosives - hexogen.

How does this refute my initial thesis about improving the characteristics of solid propellant rocket motors?
Thank you for the amendment, but you correctly noticed that the fuel is different.
My thesis is that the work was carried out and the results were achieved. What speaks about the industry as a whole.

[Last centurion]

just the media form the image of the enemy so that the Pentagon cuts the budget without questions from the population

[Old26]

Quote: assault

strategic nuclear-powered submarine missile cruiser of modified project 09552 (code "Borey-A") "Prince Vladimir" (serial number 204) is at the final stage of testing and will be put into service by the end of 19g.

When will be adopted, then we will take it. Currently armed with 3 boats ...

[sanya_sergant]

We decided to scare the American farmer a bit, so as not to relax.
There is no other meaning in such articles.

[shinobi]

"Fun" will be for everyone, since 2/3 of the population lives in cities. Mainly, the outback and the village will survive. The main danger will be radioactive fallout. If not for this feature of nuclear weapons, then the war would have died down in the 70s.

[Resistance]

R-30 "Bulava" - one step forward, two steps back: o (((

[Old26]

Quote: Persistence

R-30 "Bulava" - one step forward, two steps back: o (((

Well, "Bulava" is certainly not a masterpiece, but it doesn't suck either. At least not as monstrous as the P-39. And this means the dimensions of the boat will be of normal size, and not like that of the 941 project