Military Review

"Petrel" through the eyes of US intelligence and CNBC

81
Promising samples of Russian weapons announced last year attract media attention and foreign intelligence. From time to time, data from intelligence agencies appear in open press. On 11 of September, the American news agency CNBC again addressed the topic of the promising “Petrel” rocket and published information from sources in intelligence agencies.




Unnamed source


New data on the progress of the Petrel project was obtained from a source in an unnamed US intelligence organization. However, only part of the information is published for the first time, while others were already present in earlier articles by CNBC and other media. Then, anonymous intelligence sources were also indicated.

American intelligence found that tests of the promising Burevestnik missile so far are not going in the best way. Accidents occur, incl. with human casualties. So, the incident at the Nyonoks training ground in early August is associated with the operation to raise the sunken experienced Petrel. Because of the explosion during these works, five Russian specialists were killed.

CNBC writes that from November 2017 to February 2018, Russian industry conducted four test launches of prototypes. Another launch took place this year. All these starts ended in accidents. According to intelligence, the shortest flight lasted in seconds, and the rocket managed to fly only 5 miles (8 km). During the most successful test, the flight lasted more than two minutes, and during this time the rocket overcame approx. 22 miles (35 km).

It is alleged that these tests demonstrated serious problems with the Petrel’s propulsion system. There were difficulties starting up the reactor. Ultimately, all this leads to the fact that the promising missile is not yet able to continue the flight for many hours and show the declared unlimited flight range.

Despite the observed problems, US intelligence is prone to optimistic estimates. According to a document produced by CNBC, the expected timing of the appearance of the combat-ready "Petrel" has shifted to the left. The missile will be able to enter service over the next six years. Other versions were expressed earlier, implying a later arrival weapons into arsenals.

Assessment of the situation


A recent CNBC publication provides ratings by several US defense and security experts. Moreover, they affect not only technology, but also political issues, as well as the impact of new Russian projects on the international situation.

For example, Jeffrey Lewis of Middlebury Institute of International Studies noted that countries are at the start of a new arms race. "The personal friendship of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin does not replace the treaties," and therefore the countries continue to develop new weapons.

Joshua Pollack, editor of Nonproliferation Review, is also quoted. He considers the new Russian strategy for the development of strategic weapons redundant, and also notes that the development of fundamentally new technologies always takes a lot of time. At the same time, existing intercontinental ballistic missiles are quite capable of coping with the same tasks without much difficulty.

Official data


The American news agency CNBC provides information on five test launches of the Petrel missile from the end of 2017 to the summer of 2019. These data were obtained last year and this year from unnamed sources in US intelligence agencies. The specifics of intelligence and media work to a certain extent limits the real value of such information.



The situation with official data on the progress of the rocket is no better. For the first time on the existence of the product, later called the "Petrel", was announced 1 March 2018 g. Then it was indicated that at the end of 2017-th successful launch of an experimental rocket. The nuclear power plant of the product went into operation and showed the necessary characteristics.

The next time, official information appeared in July. Then the Ministry of Defense showed the assembly shop of the manufacturer, and also spoke about the latest successes. By that time, the project was improved, and preparations were underway for testing a modified missile.

Since then, there have been no new official announcements of the Petrel. At the same time, domestic and foreign media have repeatedly recalled this project, and various news. So, at the beginning of the year, the Russian press wrote about the successful testing of a nuclear power plant for a rocket. Almost simultaneously with this, materials were published abroad about various difficulties and even accidents.

Truth Is Out There


For obvious reasons, the Russian Ministry of Defense is in no hurry to disclose all the data on promising strategic weapons projects. At the same time, domestic and foreign mass media show great interest in this subject and strive to extract and publish new data from all available sources. In addition, there may be characteristic additional factors that influence the selection and presentation of news.

The result is a very interesting situation. There is very little official data on the Petrel project, although they answer some of the basic questions. Domestic media outlets publish new unofficial information about the success of the project, while foreign publications often focus on failures that they learned from unnamed sources.

Based on the available data, a fairly detailed picture can be made, in which, however, there are many white spots. How true it is is unknown. Due to the special nature of the project, real detailed information may appear only in the future.

Apparently, to date, Russia has indeed carried out several full-fledged test launches of Petrel. The course of several tests made it possible to shoot previously published videos showing the start and flight of products. At the same time, the actual flight parameters remain unknown.

There is reason to believe that not everything is going smoothly, and rocket developers are faced with problems. In the early stages of flight tests, various malfunctions are always observed, and part of the test flights really could not go according to the plan, including with accidents. How true the information of CNBC on five launches with five failures is unknown.



You should pay attention to estimates of US intelligence regarding the timing of the completion of the project. CNBC writes that such forecasts have changed - now analysts expect a faster completion. "Petrel" will be able to enter service in the period up to 2025, inclusive. Such estimates look especially curious against the background of reports of a number of accidents and unsuccessful testing.

Regarding regular reports of failures, we can talk about a biased presentation of information. Due to the specific situation on the international scene, foreign media cannot unambiguously acknowledge Russian successes, let alone openly praise our projects. In this regard, the emphasis is shifted to accidents and failures.

Optimism and pessimism


Despite the differences in the selection of facts for coverage and different accents, different media and official sources agree on some considerations about the Petrel project. No one denies that work on the new rocket continues, and new tests are regularly conducted.

It is also obvious to everyone that the project, which is of particular importance for the national security of Russia, will be completed and the latest missile will go into service. Moreover, foreign sources tend to shift the terms to the left, which looks like some kind of optimistic assessment. It also shows that the adoption of the finished Burevestnik missile is expected both in our country and abroad. However, you should not expect that the processes preceding this will be accompanied by positive assessments and praises from foreign publications.
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
81 comment
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. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 19 September 2019 05: 42
    +2
    Whatever it was, but Russia needs new weapons to deter a possible aggressor from trying to destroy us ... We are not preparing a war, we are preparing for a war and this is justified.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 19 September 2019 05: 54
      -4
      "cartoons" did not need to be shown prematurely, otherwise, everything looks "not ice".
      1. Constructor68
        Constructor68 19 September 2019 07: 58
        +9
        "cartoons" did not need to be shown prematurely, otherwise, everything looks "not ice".

        Well, they set you on fire so one place? Everyone who is interested in products - discuss possible characteristics. The rest, who would only scratch their tongues, discuss the realistic rendering of the accompanying animation.
      2. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 19 September 2019 10: 05
        +3
        Quote: Dead Day
        cartoons "did not need to be shown prematurely, otherwise everything looks" not ice ".

        Not understood...! What is "premature" and what is not ice? How many tests have been carried out so far? How many tests were carried out with the "Satan" before she entered service? How much ..... with Bulava? How much ........ with the Vanguard "? what As "folk wisdom" says: If you "suffer" for a long time, then we will succeed! yes Even the American "pundocs" do not think that the "Petrel" will be! soldier PS Here is just one thing haunted: "why?" ... As in that joke: Although I have been retired for a long time, but now I am looking at girls ... only I can not remember: why? ...
      3. 5-9
        5-9 19 September 2019 13: 55
        0
        The main thing is that not like the United States did a dozen programs each, cartoons renders are played for years, and products are not, and then they quietly cover the program, officially to make it "even better" ...
      4. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 19 September 2019 15: 05
        +1
        Quote: Dead Day
        "cartoons" did not need to be shown prematurely, otherwise, everything looks "not ice".

        I think that the information on new weapons from the screens of the Central Administration did not come from the president’s lips because he was eager to boast, but rather because someone sewed in one place and pushed for actions that were not acceptable to us and that would land it and information was voiced on the types of weapons that would be enough to hang the cradles too arrogant, whoever he was.
      5. Umalta
        Umalta 19 September 2019 20: 21
        0
        Well, the newspaper ravine with its sources and all their agencies have been puffed up more than once in recent history and don’t have to go far for examples, I’m not even talking about officials and the accident there was unknown, but what about another version of a new weapon?
    2. Jack O'Neill
      Jack O'Neill 19 September 2019 09: 50
      -4
      Whatever it was, but Russia needs new weapons to deter a possible aggressor from trying to destroy us ... We are not preparing a war, we are preparing for a war and this is justified.

      And what will change the Kyrgyz Republic with YaSU? Nothing...
      What is the point in such a CD? No...
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 19 September 2019 12: 22
        -2
        Launching a cruise missile over an unlimited range of 40000 kilometers - I believe that the Petrel is a safety net, if any, of the destruction of our strategic airfields and the withdrawal of most of the components of the aerial nuclear triad with strategic cruise missiles. Weapons will soon go into space on an ongoing basis - from there it will be much easier to hit ground large objects.
        1. Jack O'Neill
          Jack O'Neill 19 September 2019 13: 01
          0
          Launching a cruise missile over an unlimited range of 40000 kilometers - I believe that the Petrel is a safety net, if any, of the destruction of our strategic airfields and the withdrawal of most of the components of the airborne nuclear triad with strategic cruise missiles.

          This is just a CD with YaSU. This is not an ICBM, for example ... The same X-101, but the SU is different.
          If it was produced in large quantities, like "Caliber", then another story. But this is a piece product, hence the troubles.
          There are no less effective means, but much cheaper (the same Iskander). Yes, the range is not that long, but it is not needed, not at such a price.
          Today, the Kyrgyz Republic is completely intercepted, and the airfield will be covered by air defense / missile defense.
          Sense from "Petrel", like from a goat of milk ...
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 19 September 2019 13: 44
            -2
            We perfectly watched how an airfield and other military and civilian facilities would be covered there, using the example of an American-made air defense of Saudi Arabia - when a dozen subsonic - not new cruise missiles and UAVs destroyed an oil terminal.
            1. Jack O'Neill
              Jack O'Neill 19 September 2019 15: 32
              +1
              We perfectly watched how an airfield and other military and civilian facilities would be covered there, using the example of an American-made air defense of Saudi Arabia - when a dozen subsonic - not new cruise missiles and UAVs destroyed an oil terminal.

              Judge air defense by the Saudis. Well, very so-so.
              Israel doesn’t have any problems ...
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 25 September 2019 15: 09
                0
                Quote: Jack O'Neill
                Israel doesn’t have any problems ...

                yes you? On Galan 2 hail, the dome was broken, of 400 water pipes were able to intercept about 25%. in my opinion these are pretty problems wink
          2. 5-9
            5-9 19 September 2019 13: 57
            0
            For soft goals, it can work out well ... and it can fly to the USA from any direction (at least from the Gulf of Mexico, at least from the south-west of the Pacific Ocean, i.e. a round-robin defense is needed.
            1. Jack O'Neill
              Jack O'Neill 19 September 2019 15: 42
              0
              For soft goals, it can work out well ... and it can fly to the USA from any direction (at least from the Gulf of Mexico, at least from the south-west of the Pacific Ocean, i.e. a round-robin defense is needed.

              They will burn, as the "Petrel" will "flicker" with the exhaust.
              There is a ramjet engine. If there was a heat exchanger, then this could have been avoided. But such a design does not fit in the X-101 case.
              Here the question of routes with settlements is also important. Otherwise, I feel that "Petrel" will be called "Cancer Wand".
              1. krizis
                krizis 19 September 2019 17: 14
                +2
                Even if the forward flow is not a fact, that will be a lot of buzz.
                1. Jack O'Neill
                  Jack O'Neill 19 September 2019 20: 13
                  -1
                  Even if the forward flow is not a fact, that will be a lot of buzz.

                  Fact. The question is different: strong or very strong? ..
                  1. krizis
                    krizis 19 September 2019 20: 17
                    +3
                    Amid the global nuclear conflict - extremely weak.
                    1. Jack O'Neill
                      Jack O'Neill 19 September 2019 20: 20
                      -1
                      Amid the global nuclear conflict - extremely weak.

                      We also need to live up to the nuclear one. No one in their right mind will immediately shoot nuclear weapons. Well, if you press it very hard (for example, as the Germans near Moscow), then there’s not even a fact that they’ll apply it.
                      Everything is simple: if one is applied, then the second will be applied, and there it’s in the chain.
                      For example, in WWII, ours could use chemical weapons, but did not, as the Germans would begin to poison in response.
                      And in the case of exchanges of ICBMs, there will be no time for the Burevestniki.
                      1. krizis
                        krizis 19 September 2019 20: 28
                        +1
                        Well, yes, one can also say about ICBMs :) Just in case of launching an ICBM, it will be launched to maximize the strength and means of counteraction.
                      2. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 19 September 2019 20: 43
                        0
                        Well, yes, one can also say about ICBMs :) Just in case of launching an ICBM, it will be launched to maximize the strength and means of counteraction.

                        And the meaning of "stretching"? Rockets will go from mines and boats, here "Petrel" is like a dead fit.
                        The strategic nuclear forces will be enough for us even without the "Petrel" to wipe out the United States, its allies and ourselves. Amers also have an impressive arsenal, and Europe's old woman has something.
                        This is the same as shooting from a tank at a target and then from a pistol.
                      3. krizis
                        krizis 19 September 2019 20: 54
                        +3
                        So that there is no hope that missile defense can save, and difficult to predict components such as ultra-long nuclear torpedoes and missile defense are added. This is the same component of strategic nuclear forces as ICBMs.
                      4. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 19 September 2019 21: 05
                        -1
                        So that there is no hope that missile defense can save, and difficult to predict components such as ultra-long nuclear torpedoes and missile defense are added. This is the same component of strategic nuclear forces as ICBMs.

                        Even if a part is intercepted, it will not make any difference, with or without the Petrel.
                        As for me, "Petrel" is a demonstrator, only.
                        Make a CD with YaSu, yes, cool. In the 50's there were even planes, but for obvious reasons they abandoned such an idea.
                      5. krizis
                        krizis 19 September 2019 21: 13
                        +2
                        Even as he does, because the United States has been spending crazy money on missile defense for more than a decade. With a limited number of ICBMs after weakening the first strike, it is quite possible to reduce the damage from a retaliatory strike to acceptable. If not now, then in the foreseeable future. Now, a new increase in costs will meet the question of what guarantee it will hope for, because even with the complete success of missile defense, an attack by torpedoes along the coast and from the country's centers will make the war for the United States in vain.
                        In the 50s, there were reasons to refuse such CDs, now there are others - to accept. Among these reasons are the limitation of the arsenal and the development of missile defense. As well as nuclear technology and electronics. By the way, even in the 50s, the emissions of the American "pluto" engine were much weaker than expected.
                      6. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 19 September 2019 22: 24
                        0
                        Even as he does, because the United States has been spending crazy money on missile defense for more than a decade.

                        Missile defense is not absolutely, however, like air defense. And the interceptors are also worth a lot, even for amers.

                        With a limited number of ICBMs after weakening the first strike, it is quite possible to reduce the damage from a retaliatory strike to acceptable.

                        I can't even imagine what needs to be done to "sleep" the blow like this.
                        Our ICBM launch fires very quickly, and here it will depend on the commander in chief whether ours will fly back.

                        Now, a new increase in costs will meet the question of what guarantee it will hope for, because even with the complete success of missile defense, an attack by torpedoes along the coast and from the country's centers will make the war for the United States in vain.

                        Well, we’ll infect the coast with them, and then what?
                        In order to wash away the coast, you need very powerful bombs, there will be over a hundred megatons. And it will be necessary to place a line along the coast.
                        There will be no sense from a pair of "Petrel". And it does not matter what kind of warhead, conventional or nuclear. The unpushable cannot be crammed exactly.

                        50x had its own reasons to refuse such CDs, now others accept.

                        I wrote about airplanes, not KR.

                        Among these reasons are the limitation of the arsenal and the development of missile defense.

                        Yes, missile defense is easier to bring down a missile defense than an ICBM warhead, which also flies with a bunch of false ones, and not one.
                      7. krizis
                        krizis 19 September 2019 22: 44
                        +1
                        Of course, missile defense is not absolute, and expensive, because reducing its meaning with the help of a petrel and a Poseidon makes it very difficult to learn additional financing.
                        It is quite realistic to miss the first strike so that the enemy hopes to achieve this, and Russia took measures, such as diversifying the carriers into mine, ground, sea-based, and would be happy to base on the railway. Well, it is not by chance that systems like "perimeter" are promoted.
                        For our part, it is important not only to avoid a disarming or decapitating strike, but to deprive the enemy of a sufficient degree of confidence in his success. As I said, a petrel with a Poseidon is one way.
                        The damage from the coast attack is very painful for the USA with its dependence on maritime communications. + the destruction of several major centers - and the United States will greatly lose in economic and industrial power. Which makes sense the destruction of the Russian Federation.
                        You wrote about airplanes, but there were also KR, quite successfully developed.
                        The US missile defense can’t shoot down cruise missiles at all. And their air defense is much less developed than ours, and now, in order to hope for victory, they need to build, in addition to a stronger missile defense, a global air defense around the entire perimeter, plus global underwater defense.
                      8. 3danimal
                        3danimal 20 September 2019 05: 20
                        -2
                        The perimeter, as a kind of independent system, is a fiction. RVSN backup communication system in case of damage to the main one.
                        Let's not rave: no one in my health is interested in a big war. To do this, evil dictators / emperors must come to power in a number of the strongest countries. This is not there.
                      9. krizis
                        krizis 20 September 2019 09: 01
                        +1
                        You are arguing with yourself here. It's not about a super robot and not about evil assholes, it's about reality. which in human history regularly turns into big wars and big defeats.
                      10. 3danimal
                        3danimal 20 September 2019 13: 02
                        0
                        Too broad reasoning.
                        I mean that they have no purpose to attack first. Unjustified (loss / gain).
                        Plus, their government will not start a war at all, in which a huge number of its citizens can die.
                      11. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 20 September 2019 12: 39
                        0
                        Of course, missile defense is not absolute, and expensive, because reducing its meaning with the help of a petrel and a Poseidon makes it difficult to learn additional financing

                        How many "Petrel" will be? Hundreds are needed to make the weather compare to the rest of the strategic nuclear forces! And a few pieces or a couple of dozen is too little for anything.

                        It is real enough to miss the first strike so that the enemy hopes to achieve this, and Russia took measures, such as diversification of carriers into mine, ground, sea-based, and would be glad to base on railway.

                        Realistically, but there must be a lot of "BUTs".
                        We, like the Americans, are following these things. For example, ICBM launches are negotiated so that no one freaks out and presses the same button.
                        And in the event of such an attack, a lot of ICBMs will fly into us, without seeing which we must really try.

                        For our part, it is important not only to avoid a disarming or decapitating strike, but to deprive the enemy of a sufficient degree of confidence in his success. As I said, a petrel with a Poseidon is one way.

                        And avoid and make it clear that the answer will be - equivalent.
                        And again - there must be a lot of "Petrel", a lot to be useful.
                        And I am silent about the fact that his work with the Ocean can perform SSGN.

                        The damage from the coast attack is very painful for the USA with its dependence on maritime communications. + the destruction of several major centers - and the United States will greatly lose in economic and industrial power.
                        .

                        Painful, but not fatal.

                        What makes sense the destruction of the Russian Federation

                        On the contrary, this is a reason for a retaliatory attack.

                        You wrote about airplanes, but there were also KR, quite successfully developed.
                        The US missile defense can’t shoot down cruise missiles at all.

                        Why can't it? The same PAC-3 (ERINT) can.

                        And their air defense is developed much worse than ours and now they need to build, in addition to a stronger missile defense, a global air defense along the entire perimeter, plus global underwater defense, to hope for victory

                        Not certainly in that way. US air defense is not only stationary systems, but also aviation. By the way, like with our air defense / airborne forces.
                        So I would not underestimate US air defense.
              2. Umalta
                Umalta 19 September 2019 20: 29
                0
                Well, who said that he would fonit, and if so, how to detect at a long distance?!, Create special devices, what is the principle of operation of this engine ?! Only one thing is known, that we are the first in materials science, well, suppose that this is just an isotope and thermocouple apparatus but so effective and powerful that we never dreamed that part of our publications was simply disinfect ?!
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 19 September 2019 13: 16
      -3
      So where did you get that they want to destroy us? It was then necessary for the “aggressor” to beat everything in the first half of the 90s with all that is needed, and not to reduce the military budget.
      1. Katanikotael
        Katanikotael 19 September 2019 18: 41
        0
        A cornered bear is more dangerous than a wound of a licking wound.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 19 September 2019 18: 54
          0
          Sounds like an excuse for an insolvent version.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 19 September 2019 20: 51
          0
          What, in your understanding, is a good time to attack? Then they were weaker - they were afraid of "wounded", now - objectively - stronger, they became less afraid?
          Where is the logic?
  2. Mainbeam
    Mainbeam 19 September 2019 06: 26
    +4
    The article is better than the previous one on this topic.
    She was quite a "pitchfork on the water."
  3. rocket757
    rocket757 19 September 2019 06: 48
    +2
    New weapons, vigorous arguments .... something really is, something can be !!! That is why they do not "bite" !!!
    1. Vol4ara
      Vol4ara 19 September 2019 11: 08
      -1
      Quote: rocket757
      New weapons, vigorous arguments .... something really is, something can be !!! That is why they do not "bite" !!!

      They haven’t bitten before.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 19 September 2019 11: 21
        +1
        Quote: Vol4ara
        They haven’t bitten before.

        Because the arguments appeared \ did ... since then and do not bite! And before that they bit, they planned to level it at all.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 19 September 2019 18: 56
          0
          When exactly? In 1949, when they had 200, and in the Union 1 argument?
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 19 September 2019 19: 29
            +1
            Everything changed quickly.
            By the way, they did not sniff, did not flush, because they were not sure that they would win!
            Just FEAR to get a specific answer stops everyone who is not completely branded.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 19 September 2019 20: 45
              0
              So how are you sure they wanted to attack first? What then do you think is a good moment to attack?
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 20 September 2019 06: 40
                0
                Quote: 3danimal
                What then do you think is a good moment to attack?

                Learn history. When there was a "GOOD MOMENT TO ATTACK", they attacked IMMEDIATELY!
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 20 September 2019 07: 14
                  -1
                  A fascist regime attacked with an inadequate evil dictator.
                  Are you talking about this?
                  And again, no specifics. Following your strange logic: did not attack, then the moment did not come. Although then they were weaker. And now why should and why?
                  The modern RF is stronger than itself in the 90s, in the USA and allies there are no leader regimes and dictators (prone to adventures and considering the population as an instrument for them). So who should attack now? Martians?
                  1. rocket757
                    rocket757 20 September 2019 07: 30
                    +1
                    Dive deeper into history, the period of civil and the formation of Soviet Power .... intervention.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    in the USA and allies there are no leader regimes and dictators (prone to adventures and considering the population as an instrument for them). So who should attack now? Martians?

                    Do you read yours? How many times in previous years these same dermocratic, "white and fluffy", carried out attacks on different countries, where, of course, no one called them? Learn modern history too, it seems the same gap / emptiness, as with the history of OUR country.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 20 September 2019 07: 35
                      -1
                      They attacked every little thing that they could defeat with minimal consequences.
                      And the Russian Federation approved / was neutral in most of them.
                      The intervention occurred during the Civil War (unleashed by the Bolsheviks who carried out the coup).
                      Only the leader regimes are ready to throw tens and hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens into the firebox without looking back.
                      1. rocket757
                        rocket757 20 September 2019 07: 44
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Only the leader regimes are ready to throw tens and hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens into the firebox without looking back.

                        You take it seriously ...... teach history.
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal 20 September 2019 08: 18
                        0
                        Excuses. When over the past 30 years, countries with democratic governments entered into a bloody war with the indicated number of victims? Examples in the studio! )
  4. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 19 September 2019 11: 20
    +3
    On the shore in Nenoks are abandoned radioactive platforms, one of two damaged:
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 19 September 2019 11: 32
      -1
      Since the platforms are clearly not intended for launch operations, the version of the ascent from the bottom of a missile that fell into the bay after unsuccessful tests looks quite plausible.

      The platforms do not have rooms for protection against explosion and radiation - this is a jamb of the head of the lifting work ... the maintenance staff had no chance to escape ...
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 19 September 2019 12: 29
        +3
        There is no substantial evidence that it was the Petrel that exploded there.
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 19 September 2019 12: 40
          0
          Quote: Vadim237
          Why did you get the idea that these platforms are generally lifting - maybe the measuring equipment was located on them, there is no tangible evidence that it was the Petrel that exploded there.


          Connecting the head: explosion, radiation, damaged platforms ... radioactive - in about one area coincidence? Only assumptions.

          A vessel with lifting equipment for this type of very compact missile can be relatively small. The platforms were intended for preparatory work.
          Definitely there should have been engine control equipment (reactor).
          For disposal, it is necessary to deactivate the reactor, of course, connect it to the control equipment.
          Somewhere at this stage, something went wrong ...
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 19 September 2019 14: 01
            +3
            Or maybe there mini-reactor installation of an underwater robotic apparatus exploded. Or maybe the turbojet engine exploded - destroying the rocket and the reactor itself, or maybe there the powerful RTG blew up which should feed the underwater launch platform from the ICBM - an underwater launch. The explosion, according to eyewitnesses, was a fairly powerful mini-reactor, but it can also explode an ICBM rocket and destroy a powerful nuclear battery that is part of the complex. The petrel was mostly allowed out of the Novaya Zemlya firing ranges - that the guys forgot 28 kilometers from Severodvinsk - but that in Severodvinsk they are building submarines capable of carrying ICBMs and there is also a test complex for underwater and surface launch tests of ICBMs in it.
            1. DimerVladimer
              DimerVladimer 19 September 2019 14: 22
              0
              Quote: Vadim237
              An ICBM liquid propellant rocket explode and destroy a powerful nuclear battery that is part of the complex.


              Just do not tell me about the rocket launcher ICBM :), my specialization.
              It is unlikely that you have any idea about SLBMs - you would not have written such a thing.
              What is there to "warm" the reactor as part of an SLBM? :)))

              Are there fire marks on the deck and on the containers? We look carefully ...
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 19 September 2019 17: 01
                0
                In the composition - I mean not in the rocket itself, but in the platform with which this rocket will take off.
            2. DimerVladimer
              DimerVladimer 19 September 2019 17: 17
              +1
              TTRD - one of the safest engines - to set fire to solid fuel - is another task.
              Though you are bull carcasses about him :))
              The launch of a turbojet engine is not an easy engineering task; temperatures of thousands of degrees are required
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 19 September 2019 15: 18
            +2
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            Connecting the head: explosion, radiation, damaged platforms ... radioactive - in about one area coincidence?

            And what is this talking about?
            There are types of weapons that require power supplies with a huge service life. There are simply no alternatives, in this area, to atomic power sources. For example, missiles, which in capsules can lie on the bottom of the sea (ocean) for years, in standby mode, waiting for a signal to launch.
            Of course, in an accident of such a complex there will be radioactive contamination.
            1. DimerVladimer
              DimerVladimer 19 September 2019 15: 21
              -1
              Quote: Bad_gr
              For example, missiles, which in capsules can lie on the bottom of the sea (ocean) for years, in standby mode, waiting for a signal to launch.


              Give some examples?
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 19 September 2019 15: 45
                +2
                Quote: DimerVladimer
                Quote: Bad_gr
                For example, missiles, which in capsules can lie on the bottom of the sea (ocean) for years, in standby mode, waiting for a signal to launch.


                Give some examples?

                About nuclear power supplies? So they were still used in Brezhnev times on lighthouses (12-volt, barrel, which was buried, I won't say how deep (I don't know) into the ground). Also, we used atomic batteries on satellites. There was even a scandal when one of our "Cosmos" fell on Finnish territory and made a little shit. And about the rockets on duty at the bottom of the oceans, in capsules, there was an article somewhere recently. Missiles in capsules - what is difficult in their manufacture? Only the desire of the leadership of our country.
                1. DimerVladimer
                  DimerVladimer 19 September 2019 15: 59
                  +1
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  Missiles in capsules - what's so hard to make? Only the desire of the leadership of our country.


                  Simply? :)))
                  This is an unrealized project from the 80s of KBM.
                  Why not implemented?
                  You have not seen what the SLBM shell corrosion turns into over 10 years of combat duty - this is with regular monitoring on the submarine.
                  And an SLBM "thrown" to a depth of 50-100 m in a launch container can be detected by sonar and then, if desired: mined, rendered unusable, destroyed, stolen in the end - an ownerless weapon in fact.
                  And to shoot from a greater depth - does not allow the design of the rocket - unacceptable pressure.
                  There was an option to rise in an air cavity, but this does not solve the issues of safe storage of nuclear equipment :))
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 19 September 2019 19: 20
                    +2
                    Quote: DimerVladimer
                    This is an unrealized project from the 80s of KBM.

                    :) I talked with a man who worked at the enterprise where these missiles were fired. I agreed with him about a lubricant that has not lost its properties in seawater for years. Unfortunately, he didn’t come to us on a business trip :(
  5. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 19 September 2019 12: 02
    +1


    The photo shows that the container has a door for personnel and something like an army HLF on top.
    But judging by how damaged it is, it has nothing to do with explosion-proof rooms.

    The organizer of the ascent from the bottom of the sunken object, clearly did not count on the emergency situation that occurred on the deck of the pontoon.
    Unfortunately, we have to admit that the organization of lifting work was carried out negligently.
    - the use of not specialized vessels, but improvised, hastily equipped pontoons with protection in the form of 20 ft containers that do not provide reliable protection against a potential explosion of the product,
    - radioactive pontoons thrown ashore indicate an extremely low degree of organization of rescue and decontamination operations of the Moscow Region

    The question is - is there anyone up there who will give gouging on the head?
    Or the medals were handed out to the dead and look forward to the next case - but with such unprofessional preparatory work, they should not be excluded, unfortunately.

    PS
    The Governor of the Arkhangelsk region of Russia Igor Orlov said that the radioactive pontoons lying on the White Sea after the explosion at a military training ground in Nenoks near the city of Severodvinsk will be disposed of.
  6. Old26
    Old26 19 September 2019 15: 08
    +6
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Quote: Dead Day
    cartoons "did not need to be shown prematurely, otherwise everything looks" not ice ".

    Not understood...! What is "premature" and what is not ice? How many tests have been carried out so far? How many tests were carried out with the "Satan" before she entered service? How much ..... with Bulava? How much ........ with the Vanguard "? what As "folk wisdom" says: If you "suffer" for a long time, then we will succeed! yes Even the American "pundocs" do not think that the "Petrel" will be! soldier PS Here is just one thing haunted: "why?" ... As in that joke: Although I have been retired for a long time, but now I am looking at girls ... only I can not remember: why? ...

    Prematurely, namesake is that which is "premature." Tests do not like "fuss" and always took place in silence. So you asked the question about "Satan", how many tests. A lot of. Considering all three modifications - R-36M, R-36M UTTKh and R-36M2 Voevoad, a total of 98 tests were carried out. 10 in the framework of throw tests and 88 in the framework of the flight design. Out of 10 throw tests of the R-36M - 2 were emergency. Of the 43 flight tests of the R-36M, 7 were emergency. Out of 19 flight tests of the R-36M UTTKh there were 2 emergency ones, out of 26 flight tests of the Voyevoda - there were 7 emergency ones. In total, out of 98 launches, 18 were emergency. But we did not know about it (more precisely, those who were associated with it knew). And nothing. We are still proud of this missile, although 18% of launches were emergency. But the Bulava tests took place in public, every failure was savored.
    So it is here. They said about "Vanguard" after the tests were completed, but about "Poseidon," Dagger "," Petrel "they said" before that. " Tests are such a thing that they can fail and the product will not be brought into service.
    But it was necessary to make an "unkillable" pre-election move. Made by the President. Moreover, the tonality of this "stuffing" was such that everything was already ready, it only remained to be adopted. What is in reality?

    1. "Avangard", although it was put into service this year, most likely in December will put on the WDS a starting minimum. And only by the end of next year a regiment of 6 launchers was deployed. By 2023, they promise to put 2 regiments on alert.
    -----------
    2. "Peresvet". Although the media are silent about him, he is deployed at least in the positional areas of two missile divisions. At the same time, there are satellite photos of the adversary
    -----------
    3. "Dagger". After the speech - rare information that tests are underway and the range of 800 km has already been reached. The rest is quiet. Whether it was already in service, or there was a readiness to stage it in the next 3-4 months, the media would be buzzing about it. But no. Silence
    -----------
    4. "Poseidon". Last year, they talked about its launch this year for sea trials. Although in the "cartoons" they talked about it as a finished product that is about to be put on a carrier that is not yet ready. In the spring there was a certain vague video, when it was shown almost in complete darkness that "something" comes out "from somewhere." And silence and about running and everything else.
    -----------
    5. "Petrel". It was said that we HAVE such a weapon. And silence. I am not a supporter of trumpeting all these tests, but if you yourself have already made a request for a new weapon, please be so kind as to at least maintain your image by reporting the tests, so as not to look like the final talkers. But this is not

    And the euphoria from such an announcement among the people is gradually fading away. Little by little they begin to understand that for some positions they have been hung up on their ears. So they "absorb" every information at least from somewhere, about possible tests. And our enemy makes great use of this, making such stuffing. And you, then, they say, launder, declaring that it is not so. But you know that when we begin to justify ourselves, people have even less faith.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 20 September 2019 10: 59
      -1
      Quote: Old26
      We are still proud of this missile, although 18% of launches were emergency.


      There is a nuance:
      R-36 is a non-nuclear rocket. In case of unsuccessful flight tests, in some cases there was dispersion of toxic components or local contamination of soils in uninhabited areas. Strict rules of testing and elimination of consequences that practically did not harm the environment were respected.
      During the tests, no one died - this is important.

      With the Petrel, the situation is radically different.
      According to what the locals of Nenoksy write - the missile test took place in the winter, the rocket fell on the ice immediately after the accelerator accelerator was finished (apparently the marching reactor did not start), lay on the ice for a while until it went under water. Probably the attempt to lift the rocket ended in an uncontrolled launch of the RTG capsule, local overheating and a thermal explosion under water (according to the base commander, who justified himself to the locals) - the result: the contractor’s diver lost his legs, the rest on the platform were injured and were incompatible with life and radiation doses 1000 times the fatal. A total of 7 victims of one test, the infected water area in which fishing is prohibited, radioactive equipment thrown on the shore ...

      In the days of the USSR - the first half of this list, it would be enough for those responsible for this mess to fly from their posts. But - in the USSR collegial decisions were made that stopped utopian projects in time: a nuclear-powered bomber, Dollezhal's egg and other technical crap - scientists are interested in solving technical problems at the expense of the budget, but statesmen should also understand the responsibility for their ill-considered decisions ...
  7. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 19 September 2019 15: 13
    +1
    The contents of the pontoons have already been analyzed by components by the ubiquitous "svobodovtsy":


    container - presumably DGU with a silencer on top.
    KMU Fassi type F85 or F125A.2 with a loading capacity of 4,5-5,5 tons on a home-made slide frame (overturned)
    Yellow capacity - positively transport and packaging container for radioactive waste
    Tilter, diving ladders, etc.
    To whom it is interesting more detailed http://yabloko-altai.ru/workers-rosatom- delivered-product/

    Who is not interested - immediately the conclusion of the investigators:
    a set of equipment indicates that devices on board pontoons could also be used for unloading and preserving nuclear fuel from a small-sized reactor.


    Diving ladders talk about the use of the pontoon for lifting work.
    Manipulator - for work with a load of not more than 4,5-5,5 tons (at the minimum reach of the boom) up to 775 kg at the maximum reach of the boom.
    I’ll add - there is no noticeable burning traces on the damaged platform - (i.e. this is not an explosion of a liquid propellant rocket engine with liquid fuel components), i.e. either the explosion occurred near or overboard, which led to the overturning of the manipulator onto a container with a diesel generator set.
    Those. this platform is not the epicenter of the explosion - it was supposedly located nearby.
  8. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 19 September 2019 16: 37
    0


    Pay attention to the left side - dents and looks like holes, the crane is thrown in the opposite direction from the explosion - you can roughly judge the direction of the shock wave.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 19 September 2019 17: 06
      +2
      By the way, this could also be a nuclear installation for supplying electricity to submarine nuclear submarine detection systems.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 19 September 2019 17: 41
        0
        Accordingly parsing
  9. Nitarius
    Nitarius 20 September 2019 05: 25
    0
    Even if this is fake))) Putin competently dunked the United States face in the mud))) and the rest thought)
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 20 September 2019 09: 24
      +1
      No, it’s not a fake - the rocket is real and it has a YaPRD.
  10. Old26
    Old26 20 September 2019 12: 40
    +3
    Quote: DimerVladimer

    There is a nuance:
    R-36 is a non-nuclear rocket.

    And I, Dmitry Vladimirovich, did not approve. The question was about the need to show "cartoons" before the weapon is ready and put into service.

    Quote: DimerVladimer

    In case of unsuccessful flight tests, in some cases there was dispersion of toxic components or local contamination of soils in uninhabited areas.

    Tests of the R-36M and its variants were exclusively from Baikonur and therefore it is difficult to say whether there was a fall in uninhabited areas or not. This is not the launch of serial carriers when the areas of fragment fall are determined. In one of the tests, the rocket left the mine and, rising several tens of meters, collapsed inward. The explosion destroyed the silos. And the rocket had more than 150 tons of fuel, a third of which was heptyl ...

    Quote: DimerVladimer

    Strict rules of testing and elimination of consequences that practically did not harm the environment were respected. During the tests, no one died - this is important.

    Well, about the environment, I would beware to say that such accidents practically did not harm the environment. Could not really harm the tests of rockets with a solid fuel engine, they could not really harm the ecology of a rocket accident on low-boiling fuel components. But missiles on high-boiling components - sorry, environmental damage was also done. That is what Kazakhstan has always tried to get compensation from us for this, which, in principle, is correct.
    When no one died, that’s good. But this has not always happened.

    Quote: DimerVladimer

    With the Petrel, the situation is radically different.
    According to what the locals of Nenoksy write - the missile test took place in the winter, the rocket fell on the ice immediately after the accelerator accelerator was finished (apparently the marching reactor did not start), lay on the ice for a while until it went under water. Probably the attempt to lift the rocket ended in an uncontrolled launch of the RTG capsule, local overheating and a thermal explosion under water (according to the base commander, who justified himself to the locals) - the result: the contractor’s diver lost his legs, the rest on the platform were injured and were incompatible with life and radiation doses 1000 times the fatal. A total of 7 victims of one test, the infected water area in which fishing is prohibited, radioactive equipment thrown on the shore ...

    I don’t know the details, so I can only take your word for it. The question is different. Yes, Nenox is a navy training ground and all weapons begin their test phases from there. The question is different. Why was such a dangerous product associated with the radioactive components of the engine carried out in the Nenoksa area, and not on Novaya Zemlya ??
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 20 September 2019 14: 38
      +1
      Probably because it was not Petrel that exploded, but some kind of new underwater launch rocket, which included a nuclear isotope generator.
  11. Old26
    Old26 20 September 2019 16: 30
    +3
    Quote: Vadim237
    Probably because it was not Petrel that exploded, but some kind of new underwater launch rocket, which included a nuclear isotope generator.

    Well, it is unlikely that a new underwater launch rocket is being made now. Not all "Boreas" are equipped with "Bulava" yet. Re-equipping BDRMs with a new rocket when they are decommissioned in 5-7 years is also not an option. EMNIP experienced replacement of "Liner" a couple of years ago. Therefore, the majority have only speculation about what could have been there and what not ...
    1. Mityay65
      Mityay65 21 September 2019 17: 46
      0
      Quote: Wiki
      Skif is a promising bottom-based ballistic missile. It is being developed by the Rubin Design Bureau (St. Petersburg) and the Academician Makeev (Miass) State Missile Center, commissioned by the Ministry of Defense. The Skif deep-sea ballistic missile is able to standby on the sea or ocean floor until a launch command is received.

      There are links to various open sources ...
  12. krizis
    krizis 20 September 2019 17: 16
    +1
    Quote: 3danimal
    Too broad reasoning.
    I mean that they have no purpose to attack first. Unjustified (loss / gain).
    Plus, their government will not start a war at all, in which a huge number of its citizens can die.

    On the contrary, nowhere shorter. If you were right, there would be no war.
    In the current situation, the risk is great, the United States seeks to gain an advantage that will make it acceptable, Russia is expanding the field of competition to increase uncertainty. Is the perimeter, petrel, and so forth? take a chance - check.
  13. Old26
    Old26 21 September 2019 19: 08
    +3
    Quote: Mityai65
    Quote: Wiki
    Skif is a promising bottom-based ballistic missile. It is being developed by the Rubin Design Bureau (St. Petersburg) and the Academician Makeev (Miass) State Missile Center, commissioned by the Ministry of Defense. The Skif deep-sea ballistic missile is able to standby on the sea or ocean floor until a launch command is received.

    There are links to various open sources ...

    "Skif" is another product of the "gloomy Teutonic genius". Another "wunderwaffe", it is not clear why it was created. There are more questions than answers. For example, where it will be based, at what depths. How will the BU be carried out with these complexes, how to carry out routine maintenance and about a million more questions. I would rather believe in the next modification of the "Liner" or "Bulava" than in some regular "wunderwaffe" - a bottom rocket.
    1. Mityay65
      Mityay65 21 September 2019 19: 36
      0
      Quote: Old26
      I would rather believe in the next modification of the "Liner" or "Bulava" than in some regular "wunderwaffe" - a bottom rocket.

      The bottom rocket theme has existed since the 80s. This is not unusual - a type of missile in a silo, but more flexible and resistant to a preventive strike. And after the refusal of the INF Treaty, this topic acquired a new meaning.
      Perfect for massaging retaliation strike.
  14. Old26
    Old26 21 September 2019 20: 43
    +3
    Quote: Mityai65
    The bottom rocket theme has existed since the 80s.

    The bottom rocket theme has existed since 1965. Project 602 and 602A "Skat" launchers. After considering all the "pros" and "cons" the project was closed as unpromising. Moreover, under the SALT-2 agreement, bottom rockets, as well as launchers located in the bottom of water bodies, moving along them were prohibited. Only missiles with a range of less than 600 km are allowed.
    The dimensions of this rocket, judging by its revolving installation, are 5-6 meters long, about 1 m in diameter. What "this" can do against the enemy at this approximate range

    Quote: Mityai65
    This is not unusual - a type of missile in a silo, but more flexible and resistant to a preventive strike.

    If you think that it is more flexible and resistant to a preventive strike, it will not be difficult for you to answer a few questions.
    1. How is rocket positioning planned?
    2. What will be all this starting device from which launches will be carried out
    3. How will the preliminary preparation for the launch be carried out and from what depth.
    4. It will be TPK or the whole device, which is an unmanned submarine
    5. How will signals of combat control be transmitted taking into account how signals pass in water
    5a. Separately, no teams will be given special commands for such missiles. What are the executive
    mechanisms will perceive and interpret such 6 teams
    5 B. The set of commands brought to the crew is the trigger that later on
    leads to missile launch
    6. The autonomy of such starters. Their ability to withstand corrosion mechanisms.
    7. How to solve the issue of secrecy of these devices from the operation of the enemy HAC.
    8. How to organize routine maintenance on charges.

    The simplest questions that immediately come to mind. So it’s not a very flexible system. Although it is possible and resistant to PFYAV.

    Quote: Mityai65
    Perfect for massaging retaliation strike.

    There is always a second side to a medal. This system is not yet included in the list of strategic weapons. With the range required to reach enemy territory, it will be on a par with submarine SLBMs. Taking into account the restrictions under the treaty, it will be necessary to "cut" either land-based missiles or naval missiles in order to put into service what is not clear. But even if it does not fall under the restrictions. Each medal, as you know, has two sides. So, the second side. How many missiles we can rivet, suitable for a massive retaliation strike, and how many are our enemy. How many such "tabs" will we place around its territory and how many it is.
    1. Mityay65
      Mityay65 21 September 2019 23: 23
      0
      Quote: Old26
      under the OSV-2 agreement, bottom rockets, as well as launchers located in the ground of the bottom of water bodies moving along them were prohibited

      I believe that the same restrictions exist in the successor of the OSV-2 - START-3, which is valid now until February 21, given the fact that START-3 also took into account the provisions of the INF Treaty, which has now sunk into oblivion. The conclusion is simple: the extension of START-3 in the same form, with a threshold value of nuclear warheads in 1550, can be forgotten. The level of nuclear warheads will be somewhere between 3 and 4 thousand and the removal of restrictions on the deployment of such nishtyaks as Poseidon, CR Petrel, bottom missiles, the deployment of nuclear warheads on the KR surface ships, the deployment of nuclear weapons in space, etc. It will be fun.

      Quote: Old26
      more flexible and resistant to a preventive strike it will not be difficult for you to answer a few questions.

      Here are the answers to these and other difficult questions that always accompany the development of a new product, now the guys from Rosatom and other respected offices are busy. Now, judging by what is heard, the development of a real product of the first stage is already underway.

      Quote: Old26
      The medal always has a second side. This system is not yet included in the list of strategic weapons.

      I believe that we need to honestly look into the eyes of reality and calmly accept that after the cancellation of the ABM and INF Treaty agreements, the START-3 treaty does not make sense to us. It is necessary to develop new systems of strategic weapons and make the adversary pay a heavy price for countermeasures.
  15. O. Bender
    O. Bender 22 September 2019 10: 00
    0
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    Launching a cruise missile over an unlimited range of 40000 kilometers - I believe that the Petrel is a safety net, if any, of the destruction of our strategic airfields and the withdrawal of most of the components of the airborne nuclear triad with strategic cruise missiles.

    This is just a CD with YaSU. This is not an ICBM, for example ... The same X-101, but the SU is different.
    If it was produced in large quantities, like "Caliber", then another story. But this is a piece product, hence the troubles.
    There are no less effective means, but much cheaper (the same Iskander). Yes, the range is not that long, but it is not needed, not at such a price.
    Today, the Kyrgyz Republic is completely intercepted, and the airfield will be covered by air defense / missile defense.
    Sense from "Petrel", like from a goat of milk ...
    The petrel will be in operation when everything that can be launched and delivered to the targets is already in place. After the exchange of nuclear warheads, the remaining anti-aircraft defense is unlikely to be able to work effectively against the petrel. Which, incidentally, is not needed as a warhead. the enemy so that even those who climb out of the ground will not be able to stay in protective equipment for a long time without fatal consequences. For a year of flight over the territory of the adversary, each kilometer will be densely seeded with decay products from the engine nozzle.
  16. Old26
    Old26 22 September 2019 11: 31
    +2
    Quote: Mityai65
    I believe the same limitations exist in the successor of the OSV-2 - START-3, which is valid now until February 21. Given the fact that START-3 also took into account the provisions of the INF Treaty, which has now sunk into oblivion.

    There are such restrictions in the heirs, you are right. And in START-1, and START-2, and START-3. But strategic agreements are not connected with the INF Treaty and did not take into account any provisions. If I am mistaken - bring please. a fragment of such an article in START-3. The only thing that was said about other treaties in the START-3 treaty, more precisely in its preamble, is that if the further development of US missile defense facilities threatens Russia, then it reserves the right to withdraw from this treaty

    Quote: Mityai65
    The conclusion is simple: the extension of START-3 in the same form, with a threshold value of nuclear warheads in 1550, can be forgotten. The level of nuclear warheads will be somewhere between 3 and 4 thousand and the removal of restrictions on the deployment of such nishtyaks as Poseidon, CR Petrel, bottom missiles, the deployment of nuclear warheads on the KR surface ships, the deployment of nuclear weapons in space, etc. It will be fun.

    The conclusion is absolutely wrong. The threshold of 1550 warheads was Russia's proposal. The USA offered EMNIP 2500 BG. But the United States at the same time offered the number of deployed and non-deployed systems - respectively 700 and 800. We offered a smaller number. Again EMNIP, respectively, 500 and 600 carriers. But any contract is a compromise between the contracting parties. As a result, we agreed to the numbers 700 and 800, the Americans - to 1550. Whether the number of nuclear weapons in the new version of the START-3 treaty will increase or not is an open question. Most likely not. From contract to contract, the number of charges decreased, and here you think that there will be a jump more than 2 times ...
    Of course, both Poseidon and Petrel will be included in the number of YBG strategic carriers. The deployment of YaBZ on the fleet's KR - here we will rest our horns, but we are unlikely to give consent. This is not beneficial to us from a technical point of view. Weapons in space mean only one thing. There are no restrictions left. And any more or less developed strona will be able to blackmail anyone with this.
    Bottom rockets in general I think will not give any gain. The same States have the possibility of placing an order of magnitude higher than ours.

    Quote: Mityai65
    Here are the answers to these and other difficult questions that always accompany the development of a new product, now the guys from Rosatom and other respected offices are busy. Now, judging by what is heard, the development of a real product of the first stage is already underway.

    The product of the first stage, if this is actually talking about it (the accident in Nenoks) - this is the simplest thing that will happen. It is the accompanying factors that will be the most important, and not the development of something there along the line of Rosatom on a rocket

    Quote: Mityai65
    I believe that we need to honestly look into the eyes of reality and calmly accept that after the cancellation of the ABM and INF Treaty agreements, the START-3 treaty does not make sense to us. It is necessary to develop new systems of strategic weapons and make the adversary pay a heavy price for countermeasures.

    To be honest, the 2019 INF Treaty made sense for us, and the START III Treaty also makes sense. Preservation of the INF Treaty would make it possible to calmly complete the rearmament of the fleet and the Strategic Missile Forces with new missile systems. We have only one plant left, capable of producing solid-fuel missiles. But their number is limited to about fifty ICBMs and SLBMs per year and two brigade sets of the same Iskander.
    The withdrawal from the INF Treaty put us in a very unpleasant situation. We need to either begin to produce medium-range missiles, reducing the output of intercontinental missiles and thereby slow down the rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy, or to continue to produce all of these products and produce only a few pieces each year.

    The same is with the START III treaty. We obliged them the Americans to remove from service a certain number of carriers so as not to go over the ceilings. With gritted teeth, the Americans agreed. We didn’t shoot a single missile standing on the base unit because of the excess of the ceilings. But they compensated for the natural decline of the same "Topol, R-3. If the START-29 treaty had ceased to exist, we would be in an extremely disadvantageous position. The Americans can not only increase the number of BB on their missiles (unlike us, they" unloaded " Moreover, the modernization carried out by the Americans may lead to the fact that in 3-10 years they will begin to commission a new Columbia-class SSBN, but at the same time they will not be removed from service for the Ohio for some time. Of the bomber aviation it exceeds the Russian one. They have about 15 B-70 aircraft, which they can upgrade and make them suitable for missions in the interests of strategic nuclear forces (about 52 "conventional" and about 40 in storage). more than 30 B-60B bombers in their strategic nuclear forces, modernizing them and giving them the opportunity to use strategic missile forces). Not to mention the creation of a new strategist B-1. And we? Can we at least somehow arate this option? I think no. So here, too, the START-21 treaty is beneficial to us