Aircraft strategic nuclear forces: it seems that we are mistaken in some ways

482
Today, Russia and the United States are two countries with full-fledged nuclear triads. At the same time, both in the USA and in Russia the most exclusive element of the triad is not submarines with ballistic missiles (there are four countries, India is on the “approach” fifth) and, of course, not ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.


Many have missiles, some have submarines, but only Russia and the USA have bombers. Pictured Tu-160




The most exclusive element of the nuclear triads of Russia and the United States are bombers - simply because no one else has an intercontinental strike aircraft. These are too large-scale and complex programs, so that small countries or those who do not yet have experience in the construction of such aircraft, could acquire them.

Why are these aircraft included in the nuclear triad? Why can't you have a nuclear dyad of submarines and ground missiles? The answer to this question contains the key to understanding some of the problems in the RF Aerospace Forces that are not obvious to observers. It is worth answering it and dealing with the role and place aviation forces of nuclear deterrence (ASYaF) in the defense of the country, both theoretical and real.

Some theory


A ballistic missile hits its target for tens of minutes from the moment of launch and practically cannot be shot down along the way. Airplane is another matter. He goes to the goal for long hours, sometimes tens of hours. He can be shot down many times along the way. Its flight to the target must be provided, for example, by air refueling. And all this in the end for the same thing that the rocket does much cheaper and with a probability greater at times.

At the same time, a heavy intercontinental strike aircraft is tied to airfields, and upscale airfields. Of course, there is experience taking off the Tu-95 from the polar ice floe. But with this method of combat use, it is not possible to provide a high take-off mass, which means that the aircraft will not have enough fuel on board to carry out a combat mission. This is also solvable, but complicates the combat mission to impossibility.

At the outbreak of war, the survival rate of bomber aircraft is zero. If there is a threatened period, then you can manage to disperse it, along with weaponswhich she carries - rockets and bombs.

And again - all for the sake of the fact that the rocket does faster and cheaper, with many times greater chances of success.

Why all this?

Someone may say that bombers without nuclear weapons are extremely useful military equipment. This is true, but this is not about that, but about the fact that they are included in the strategic nuclear forces and taken into account in the relevant agreements, a lot of money is spent on nuclear weapons for them, and all this should be justified.

There is an answer, and it is like that - a bomber differs from a missile as a military weapon in principle.

It can be retargeted in flight.

This is what theoretically we need not just long-range attack aircraft, but aircraft that are part of the strategic nuclear forces, one of the instruments to deter a nuclear war, or to wage it (if the deterrence fails). As a special case, a bomber with a bomb can fly out without target designation and get a combat mission already in flight. No other means of nuclear warfare possesses such qualities.

Aircraft give commanders and politicians the necessary flexibility in making decisions - they allow you to have enough time to respond to changes in the situation. A ballistic missile is like a bullet. It cannot be returned or redirected to another object in flight. A bomber - you can, and if necessary, you can simply recall it.

That is why the aviation component of the strategic nuclear forces is needed.

And here the questions begin.

Our realities


At present, several hundred nuclear weapons are listed in the national nuclear-weapon systems, of which only a part is placed on cruise missiles. The other part is the “good old” free-falling bombs.

Cruise missiles with nuclear warheads are a type of weapon that limits the flexibility of aviation - with it, the nuclear strategic nuclear forces can either deliver the same “unavoidable” strike as a ballistic missile (with all the disadvantages of such a military weapon as a bomber), or, if there is a political need, withdrawn before the launch - the latter matters after the nuclear war has begun.

Moreover, missiles allow in emergency situations to organize combat duty of bombers in the air with multiple refueling, but it must be understood that only stationary targets can keep such aircraft at gunpoint. But one of the fundamental properties of a bomber as a means of waging nuclear war - the ability to retarget at another object after departure - cruise missiles do not provide.

And this is very important. For example, a ballistic missile delivered a nuclear strike at an air base where some of the enemy's bombers and their nuclear bombs were located. However, reconnaissance means (no matter what) established the enemy’s activity in exporting something from this zone on a large number of trucks. Suppose, at this moment, a plane with a nuclear bomb goes to a nearby secondary target. Since the goal is clearly secondary, it does not make sense to spend ICBMs on it, it is also impossible to leave it as it is, since it is still important. At this point, the bomber can be retargeted, because with a high degree of probability the surviving nuclear bombs are taken out on trucks, otherwise why would they still poking around in the zone of radioactive contamination?

But if the bomber does not fly to the target with a bomb, and fired a cruise missile two hours ago, then there’s nothing to be done - the enemy will take out the bombs and then use them against us.

Of course, in such a situation, a ballistic missile can also be sent to the target, but its value in a nuclear war is too high to hit at such targets, because it will be impossible to get new missiles during the ongoing war.

Thus, the need for bombers as not just combat systems for conducting conventional wars (and even delivering a limited nuclear strike against a non-nuclear country), namely as parts of strategic nuclear forces, cruise missiles, as the only weapon significantly reduces. His, this quality, even in our very high-tech age, provides what were the weapons of strategic aircraft at the time of their appearance - free-falling nuclear bombs.

We have bombs, and the planes we use are technically capable of using them. But are the VKS ready to use bombs in a nuclear war with such an enemy as the United States or China (with any other country it will end in two moves in the best case for the enemy)?

In order to assess the readiness of our aviation for the use of freely falling bombs in a nuclear war, it is useful to look at our opponents - the Americans.

Maximum combat readiness


The United States has always paid great attention to the aviation component of its strategic forces, while maintaining the level of combat readiness of bombers was carried out taking into account the possibility of a sudden Soviet nuclear strike by missile weapons.

In order to keep the bombers as an effective military weapon even in such a “scenario”, the USA resorted to the regular allocation of part of its bombers to combat duty on the ground with already suspended nuclear bombs, with crews in the “on-duty” barracks, which generally corresponded our "readiness number 2." It was assumed that with an alarm received from the US Navy, bombers with bombs would take off urgently from bases, thus escaping from the impact of Soviet nuclear missiles, and only then would receive combat missions in the air.

The fact that both the SPRN, and the U.S. bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles were subordinate to one structure - the Strategic Air Command of the Air Force (SAK) simplified the passage of commands across all command chains and ensured the necessary speed of transfer of orders and instructions.

To do this, the appropriate means of secure radio communication were installed on board the aircraft, and the flight crew studied the geography of the USSR.

In order to guarantee that as many bombers and tankers as possible could get out of the nuclear attack, Americans from the 60's have been practicing the so-called MITO - Minimum Interval Take-offs, or in Russian - “Take-offs at minimum intervals”. The meaning of the action was that the bombers and tankers almost in a column, one after another go to the runway, and then take off at intervals of a few tens of seconds. This is a very dangerous maneuver, because by the time one plane makes a break from the runway, the next one has already gained “decision speed”, and in case of a catastrophe ahead of the take-off, it will not be able to interrupt take-off. Moreover, the next next aircraft in speed will still be able to interrupt take-off, but will not be able to stop at the crash site if it occurred on or over the runway. All this is complicated by zero visibility, in which most cars are forced to take off - the burnout from the exhaust of already taken off bombers is simply impenetrable. However, to the peak of the Cold War, the Americans were able to lift one wing after another with an interval of 15-20 seconds between take-off vehicles.


The emergency rise of bombers and tankers according to the MITO scheme


Other exercises showing exit from the parking lot

Taking into account the fact that until 1992, some of the bombers were always in the air in readiness for an immediate nuclear strike, with bombs on board, guaranteeing that the SAK would have a “flexible” attack tool in any case.

Thus, part of the US strike aircraft would be guaranteed to be taken out even from under the Soviet nuclear missile strike. Currently, the Strategic Air Command maintains this level of combat readiness of bombers. True, for decades without a real adversary and a real threat, the Americans are somewhat “softened” and now the intervals between take-off bombers can reach 30 seconds.

The second important aspect of the readiness of bombers to use bombs was the ability to overcome air defense.

I must say that the main aircraft SAK, B-52, had and, apparently, has either one of the most powerful electronic warfare systems in the world, or the most powerful. In 1972, the US Air Force and Navy carried out Operation Linebreaker-2, a series of massive bombing raids in densely populated areas of North Vietnam. The main blow in this operation was delivered by B-52 bombers, and being loaded with ordinary bombs “to the eyeballs”, they were forced to use them from high altitude, from horizontal flight, that is, from the most vulnerable regime for ground air defense.

The loss of aircraft in this operation was great. But behind them was the fact that for every downed plane there were dozens of Vietnam air defense anti-aircraft missiles that "went into hindrance." The missiles of the C-75 complexes basically simply could not hit the aircraft covered by interference. In the event of a nuclear war, all this would be seriously aggravated.

The growth of the USSR’s air defense capabilities at a certain moment led to the fact that its overcoming in the regime of a high-altitude breakthrough in the USA was considered impossible for any speed. That is why, in the end, the United States moved away from supersonic impact machines. Aircraft such as the B-58 “Hustler” serial bomber with its “two sounds” or the experienced “three-swing” Valkyrie show that the Americans could easily set up supersonic attack aircraft in any quantity, if that made sense. In the light of the capabilities of the USSR air defense, this did not make sense, the speed did not give any "bonuses" to survival, but it cost money.

Gave another.

Since the eighties, the crew of the B-52 began to practice air defense breakthroughs at low altitudes. This caused an increased risk of aircraft destruction in flight, since its glider is not designed for such loads. There was even the fact of the destruction of the vertical plumage in such a flight. But thanks to the restrictions on the minimum height of approximately 500 meters, the automatic 1195 ESR stability improvement system that blocks the aircraft from entering dangerous modes for its mechanical strength, and the crews' high skills, the problem was reduced in severity, reducing it to accelerated glider wear, which is solved by timely repair.

The avionics avionics of the aircraft does not provide flight in the mode of enveloping the terrain (and this is impossible for such a machine, it simply collapses in the air), but it can warn of an obstruction right at the heading. Optoelectronic surveillance systems allow the crew to navigate in flight at night and in conditions of bright flashes from nuclear explosions, in addition, pilots have the opportunity to use individual night vision devices, and the illumination and indication of instruments and screens in the cockpit allow you to see their readings in the NVD.

The small mass of several nuclear bombs, compared to dozens of non-nuclear ones, made it possible for the aircraft to perform maneuvers dangerous in another situation.

The combination of the possibility of a long-term approach to the enemy’s air defense coverage area at low altitudes, the ability to make such a breakthrough at altitudes of 500 meters (and by decision of the commander and if the terrain and weather conditions allow it, then less), a powerful electronic warfare complex, and the fact that the attack was carried out against a country that already had a massive nuclear missile strike, with all the ensuing consequences, would give the bomber good chances to break through to the target with bombs.

Aircraft strategic nuclear forces: it seems that we are mistaken in some ways

Outfit of the B-52 pilot for a nuclear strike mission. We have never distinguished ourselves with such attention to “trifles” and always paid dearly for this. Pay attention to the cabin instruments (and this plane is much older than any Tu-95)



And this is Tu-95MS, today


His opponent would have to fight under conditions where part of the airbases was covered by nuclear strikes, communications were paralyzed and broken, important staffs and their command posts in the command system were destroyed, and effects from the electromagnetic pulses of exploding nuclear warheads of American missiles and bombs continued to appear in places in the atmosphere. In this case, the number of attacking bombers would in any case be counted by dozens of vehicles, and if the US aviation was successfully withdrawn from the first strike (or when it was dispersed during the threatened period), then by hundreds.

All this made bomber aviation a strategic weapon, and not a bad and slow “ICBM substitute” with the “option” of canceling an attack, like any cruise missile carrier aircraft, namely a flexible means of warfare that can be retargeted, recalled and sent to a new one the target right in the course of an ongoing offensive operation, in the presence of a sufficient number of air tankers - repeatedly.

The B-1 Lanser and B-2 Spirit bombers, which later appeared on the arsenal, inherited this “ideology” of combat use, but their ability to break through the low-altitude air defense and the secrecy of passage through it cannot be compared with the B-52. In 1992, during the easing of tension between the US and Russia, the commander of the Russian Air Force, General Peter Deinekin, while on a visit to the United States, tested a B-1Б bomber in flight. The flight data of the aircraft and its ease of control allowed General Deinekin to easily bring the “Lancer” to supersonic flight at an altitude of 50 (fifty!) Meters above the ground. American pilots were surprised to say that "our generals do not fly like that." It must be understood that at such an altitude, an air defense system can detect and hit a target only when it is in close proximity to it and on a flat area, that is, in ideal, polygon conditions.

Upon returning to Russia, General Deinekin himself had to admit that our combat pilots also do not fly as Americans do - the latter pilot their heavy vehicles much bolder than we do, and the maneuvers that they have in the combat and flight training program , we often simply banned by governing documents.

As for the B-2, its “separation” in combat effectiveness from the predecessor of the B-1 is even stronger than that of the B-1 from the B-52. In the case of the B-2, the “supersonic” that is not particularly needed in such a mode (which also “catches up” additional EPR due to the concentration of moisture from the air in the front of the jump behind the aircraft) is removed, but it significantly adds, at times, a shorter detection range for such an aircraft Radar of any type, except long-wave, which is unsuitable for guiding missiles.

For all this, the United States does not deny the importance of missile weapons. Both the Americans and we have always tried to equip the bombers with a "long arm" - missiles that enable them to strike, acting from outside the enemy’s air defense zone. Moreover, modern-day cruise missiles, that is, small-sized, inconspicuous, subsonic, with a folding wing and low-altitude flight, with an economical turbojet engine, were invented by the Americans.

But, unlike us, for them this weapon has always been only one option for certain conditions. It is invaluable for a limited-scale war, including a limited nuclear war. But as an element of strategic nuclear forces, it cannot be the main or only weapon of the nuclear forces. Relying on cruise missiles, as the only type of weapon for the nuclear strategic nuclear forces, deprives the "nuclear" bombers of meaning - in the event of a nuclear war they become just a "substitute for ICBMs", with the additional opportunity to withdraw them from the attack if their missiles are not already launched. In a conventional war, their value is undeniable, but in a nuclear war, the potential of aviation as a weapon of war alone cannot be revealed by missiles.

For Americans, guided missiles have always been a means of “hacking anti-aircraft defense” along the way to the bomb target. Deliver nuclear missiles from afar and from a safe distance, against previously known anti-aircraft defense facilities, air bases, long-range radars that survived an ICBM strike, then break through devastated zones to the main targets in the depths of the enemy’s territory. That is why they almost never with the advent of new missiles did not re-equip all aircraft under them. For local wars, this does not make sense, they do not need a lot of missile carriers, in nuclear planes they are needed mainly as a “flexible” re-targeted tool, which means that they should mainly carry bombs, and “rocketization” costs a lot of money ... why spend it then?

At the same time, cruise missiles could well be used as an instrument of self-strike against a stationary target - if the situation required it.


The top is camouflage to mask against the background of the earth, the bottom is white, anti-nuclear to reduce the heating of the aircraft from a nuclear bomb, under the wings of an aeroballistic missile with a nuclear warhead to crack the surviving Soviet air defense, and in the bomb bay, nuclear bombs. So the B-52 looked like many years in a row


The United States is currently actively improving its nuclear attack facilities, including high-precision SLBMs in its first strike arsenal, carefully studying how automated retaliatory strike systems (“Perimeters”) work, and widening the effectiveness gap in the battle of their submarines with torpedoes and our own submarines. with ballistic missiles, and the crews of the inconspicuous B-2 bombers are actively preparing for the independent search and destruction by bombs of the surviving Russian or Chinese PGRK, who evaded the defeat first merikanskim nuclear missile attack, but had not managed to get the order to start due to the destruction of communications centers and command posts.

The role of nuclear bombs, therefore, remains even in the case of the first missile counterforce nuclear strike from the United States.

Moreover, the fact that B-52 and B-1 are removed from the list of nuclear bomb carriers should not deceive anyone - B-2 is still focused on precisely these tasks, and the number of targets that they will need to hit is not so great today , like before. B-52 remains the carrier of cruise missiles, including those with a nuclear warhead.


B-2 during refueling over the Atlantic, 2014 year. With nuclear bombs they will go to important targets in the depths of the Russian Federation or China


Recently, the US has been modernizing its free-falling nuclear bombs, equipping them with guidance and control systems similar to JDAM, which will increase their accuracy. In this case, the explosion power of the warhead is reduced.

The US nuclear arsenal from a deterrent is rapidly turning into a means of attack, and it is precisely with the deterrence potential that the Americans have sacrificed - they have already sacrificed, in order to improve their capabilities for a surprise nuclear attack.

The role of bombs and their carriers in US military plans continues to be very important.

The risk of an offensive nuclear war from the United States is constantly growing.

Some emotional statements by V.V. Putin’s theme “we’ll go to heaven, and you’ll just die” is due precisely to the understanding of the secretive preparation of the United States for an offensive nuclear war, the fact of which does not depend on who occupies the White House.

In such circumstances, we need not only to improve the mechanisms of nuclear deterrence, but also prepare for its failure - taking into account the fact that the United States significantly reduces the power of its nuclear weapons (for example, SLBM warheads from 100 to 5 kilotons) and the fact that their first the strike will be directed at our military facilities, and not at the cities, to conduct a nuclear war, and after the first strike will be to whom and for what.

This means that it is necessary to be ready to fully realize the potential of all the instruments for waging such a war, the main of which, after spending most of the missiles in a retaliatory or retaliatory strike, will be bombers.

Formulate the problem


The problem is the following - although Russia possesses technically full-fledged strategic aviation and nuclear stockpiles for it, it’s not ready to conduct a nuclear war, doctrinally, and because of the existing level of training, long-range aviation formations.

This in itself could be acceptable if they were not considered at all as an instrument as such, and if their combat use as a strategic force were not planned at all. Then it would be possible to simply decide: “our planes are not for this” and use them in the future as well as in Syria, and lead the planning of a nuclear war taking into account the fact that bombers will not be used in it. This approach has a right to exist.

But if you are guided by common sense, it becomes clear - it is much better to bring the training of aviation units to the level that will make it possible to use it precisely as a strategic one and precisely during the ongoing nuclear war. Because the use of aircraft by the same methods that the United States does, it will make it possible to have a flexible war instrument that can be retargeted, withdrawn, redirected to another target, used to strike with additional reconnaissance at a target whose coordinates are not exactly known, in some cases To use planes repeatedly is not so unrealistic given the damage caused by missile strikes and how they will affect the enemy’s air defense, their communications, fuel delivery to airfields, etc.

What do you need?

It is necessary to give strategic aviation the ability to receive a combat mission in flight. In relation to an aircraft that is a “clean” missile carrier, this means the possibility of entering a flight mission into a missile directly in flight. Moreover, taking into account what will be the interruptions in communications after the start of the exchange of nuclear strikes, this should be able to fulfill the crew of the aircraft. I would like to be able to retarget in flight and a missile, but this can give rise to a serious vulnerability of the missile to cyber attacks and this improvement should be treated with caution.

In addition, it is necessary to resume training on the use of free-falling bombs. This must be done if only because these bombs exist. Losses always take place in a war and there is no guarantee that cruise missiles will not be lost on the first strike of the enemy. So, we need a willingness to act with bombs too.

Most likely, our Tu-95 will not be able to act like the American B-52. The smaller fuselage in the cross section, the lower weight of the aircraft, and the greater wing load compared to the B-52 indicate that the Tupolevs will not be able to skip the air defense coverage area at low altitude, apparently they will not have enough structural strength for this. But firstly, the capabilities of this aircraft to use bombs in difficult conditions must be investigated, finding those limits that cannot be crossed when performing maneuvers and flights.

However, there is unconfirmed information that in the 60's low-altitude attacks on the Tu-95 were worked out, but these were other modifications, not the “MS”, so everything will have to be checked for a new one.


Tu-95MS - the main aircraft of strategic aviation in Russia. They will have to fight


Secondly, there are other options. The same Americans planned to use not only bombs, but also SRAM short-range aeroballistic missiles. The latter had to “crack” the air defense of the area by destroying air bases and stationary air defense facilities, as well as give a “flare” in the atmosphere, which would prevent the air defense system from working. And only then, under the cover of the interference of its electronic warfare system, the bomber had to break through to the target.

Technically, Russia can do the same - we had X-15 missiles with which such things were quite possible, we have X-31P supersonic anti-radar missiles, there is an X-35 missile modified for striking at ground targets, on the basis of which you can also create option to destroy the enemy radar, and in two versions at once - in the nuclear and non-nuclear. In addition, when flying over an absolutely flat surface, for example above water, even the Tu-95 is able to fly for a while at a relatively low altitude for it. Given that all ZGRLS will be destroyed by cruise missiles, the chances of the Tu-95 attacking from the sea to reach the line of launch of a large number of its small missiles for “breaking” the enemy’s air defense can hardly be considered small. I would like not to complicate the life of the “oldies” of the Tu-95, but this is our main aircraft, alas, and have to fight with what we have.

Naturally, some tactical schemes can be worked out only after a deep theoretical study. Perhaps it is worth returning the Tu-22М3 to the "strategists" and assigning the "bomb" tasks mainly to them.

As for the Tu-160, the production of which is kind of planned to be resumed (about the fact that it will be resumed, say, when the first plane takes off, created without the remaining “old backlog”), its combat potential is simply endless, the glider of this aircraft allows more than people managing it can, and with it the question arises only in adequate modernization precisely for such tasks. For example, it is worth exploring measures to reduce the radar visibility of this machine, which is very large. The Americans on the B-1B managed to reduce the EPR many times, compared with the B-1A. There is no reason to believe that with the Tu-160 we can not do the same.


Tu-160 is far from ideal, but has a chance to become one. If someone does this


Much more important is the reduced complexity of inter-flight maintenance. Hundreds of man-hours are required to prepare one Tu-160 sortie. This must be fought, weapons cannot and should not be so "gentle." And to reduce this figure is quite realistic, although it will take a lot of time and money.

But all this concerns sorties. But the exercises on the emergency dispersal of aviation, weapons and airfield equipment can be started right now. In any case, it will take years to show a level of combat readiness comparable to the enemy, and it’s better not to delay.

The situation in the world is heating up. The formal approach, when we believe that the presence of bombs and aircraft gives us combat aircraft, has completely exhausted itself. Just as having a piano at home does not make a person a pianist, the presence of bombers, missiles and bombs does not mean that the air force has strategic aviation in the full sense of the term. You must also be able to apply it properly.

In order for us to really have it, the strike potential of the aviation component of the strategic nuclear forces must be brought to the maximum possible. And preferably in the shortest possible time.
  • Alexander Timokhin
  • flickr user Laith Jobran, Rostec Group of Companies, theaviationgeekclub.com, USAF
Our news channels

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

482 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    3 November 2019 18: 15
    The article is interesting. good But not certain.
    At the same time, both in the USA and in Russia the most exclusive element of the triad is not submarines with ballistic missiles (four countries have them, India is on the “approach” fifth) and, of course, not ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.
    winked
    The most exclusive element of the nuclear triads of Russia and the United States are bombers - simply because no one else has an intercontinental strike aircraft.
    Powerfully belay
    I read it with interest.
    1. +1
      3 November 2019 19: 10
      The most exclusive element of the nuclear triads of Russia and the United States are bombers - simply because no one else has an intercontinental strike aircraft.


      Well, yes, yes ... but because Nobody has kirzachi like ours, then we are generally invincible. It is interesting to find out from the author - how often does the need to retarget missiles in flight arise? If in each flight, then yes, strategists can be given priority.
      1. +28
        3 November 2019 19: 31
        The Americans have implemented such a function on the Tomahawk CD. Write to them that they are wrong, otherwise they will die without knowing.

        Stategs do not need to be given priority; this is the most vulnerable part of the triad. Strategists need to return the opportunity that they had before - a change in combat mission in flight or its receipt after takeoff. In any way.

        That's all.
        1. +25
          3 November 2019 23: 25
          Strategists need to return the opportunity that they had before - a change in combat mission in flight or its receipt after takeoff. In any way.


          I don’t quite agree with you. First you need to return the following:
          - normal level of staffing of the Air Force
          - normal BP level of the Air Force personnel
          - the normal level of supply of equipment, infrastructure and consumables of the Air Force

          Then it will be possible to talk about strategic aviation at the proper level for such a power as Russia, as well as for the full and sufficient disclosure of its capabilities.
          .
          And for this it is imperative to change the SYSTEM of public administration, which does not provide the proper level of security for the country, both economic and domestic. A system built by liberal rubbish such as HSE graduates and interns in the United States during their studies (and not only) is dangerous for Russia's security.
        2. +3
          4 November 2019 00: 01
          The author clearly did not pay attention to Shoigu’s statement that according to the results of the use of the Kyrgyz Republic in Syria, the time for preparing and entering a combat mission in the Kyrgyz Republic was radically reduced.
          1. -2
            4 November 2019 01: 45
            After takeoff, can the flight mission be entered?
            1. -6
              4 November 2019 19: 49
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              After takeoff, can the flight mission be entered?


              With the advent of a more advanced element base and better and faster data processing algorithms, now not one flight mission, but an array of targets (main and potential) is loaded into new modifications of the Tomahawk type missile launcher at the same time and, accordingly, it can be redirected only to a potential target.
              Accordingly, flight missions and retargeting options are loaded into the rocket initially.

              It is still unrealistic to introduce a suddenly appeared address "to the village to grandfather" if it is not previously reflected in the array of potential targets!
          2. -9
            4 November 2019 19: 46
            Quote: 2Albert
            The author clearly did not pay attention to Shoigu’s statement that according to the results of the use of the Kyrgyz Republic in Syria, the time for preparing and entering a combat mission in the Kyrgyz Republic was radically reduced.


            From 20 hours to 4 hours?
            This does not change the essence ....
        3. +3
          4 November 2019 18: 15
          Still, the article does not convincingly disclose the reasons why strategic bombers need free-fall atomic bombs - this time. And two - you yourself write that the Americans have it for the attack. And why is the Russian Federation? But what about "asymmetric responses"? Isn't it better to develop the stability of air defense - incl. due to the space component, ultra-long-range missiles, disguised launch complexes (such as containers), etc.?
      2. +8
        3 November 2019 22: 04
        Quote: timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin)
        As for the B-2, its “separation” in combat effectiveness from the predecessor of the B-1 is even stronger than that of the B-1 from the B-52. In the case of the B-2, the “supersonic” (which also "Catches up" additional EPR due to the concentration of moisture from the air in the front of the jump behind the plane), but added substantially, factor of, shorter detection range of such an aircraft radar of any typeexcept long wavelength, which is unsuitable for guiding missiles.

        timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin), with increasing image intensifier tubes (EPR), the detection range increases, and not vice versa! Teach materiel!
        1. +3
          3 November 2019 22: 34
          You do not understand the meaning of what you read. Understood the opposite, so to speak.
          1. +6
            3 November 2019 22: 43
            timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin)! I understand how you wrote in Russian.
            1. +1
              4 November 2019 02: 00
              No, you didn’t understand anything.

              Let's take it one more time. I understand that for you, apparently, these few tens of letters are an impossible task. But you can try. Last time, so to speak.

              So, here is a quote that your intellect has failed.

              In the case of the B-2, the “supersonic” that is not particularly needed in such a mode (which also “catches up” additional ESR due to the concentration of moisture from the air in the front of the jump behind the aircraft) is removed, but it significantly adds, at times, a shorter detection range for such an aircraft Radar of any type, except long-wave, which is unsuitable for guiding missiles.


              I explain the meaning of Russian words in it.

              Here is this fragment
              In the case of the B-2, the “super-sound” that is not really needed in this mode goes away


              means that the B-2 does not have the ability to fly at supersonic speed, it is subsonic

              but this fragment

              (which also “catches up” additional EPR due to the concentration of moisture from the air in the front of the jump behind the plane)


              means that the supersonic flight mode leads to an increase in the EPR.

              That is, an intermediate conclusion that any full-fledged person is able to make is as follows:

              B-2 is subsonic, and supersonic increases EPR. Since the B-2 performs a breakthrough of air defense at subsonic, its increase is not affected by an increase in the EPR at supersonic, since its speed is subsonic and it has the same increase in EPR as it does in a supersonic aircraft.

              Do you understand this moment?

              Moving on.

              but it is added significantly, at times, a shorter detection range of such an aircraft radar of any type


              Since the B-2 has reduced visibility in the radar range (low EPR), and flies at subsonic speed, its visibility for radars is much less than that of another aircraft flying at supersonic speed.

              Well this is obvious, right?

              So where did you get the idea that I do not understand the effect of the EPR on the visibility of the aircraft in the radar range? You are special, not like other people, right?
              1. +7
                4 November 2019 02: 49
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                That is, an intermediate conclusion that anyone can make full-fledged person such is:

                First, look at your intelligence! For people like you and other "full-fledged" - learn radar and do not write nonsense. Supersound at all does not affect the image intensifier tube (EPR) the aircraft physically. An example for people like you and other "full-fledged" - the F-22 and F-35 aircraft, which fly at supersonic speeds and have an even smaller image intensifier (EPR). In a word - teach materiel, "our full-fledged" with your "full-fledged" companions in VO, who support your stupidity.
                1. -4
                  4 November 2019 20: 18
                  Quote: Something
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  That is, an intermediate conclusion that anyone can make full-fledged person such is:

                  First, look at your intelligence! For people like you and other "full-fledged" - learn radar and do not write nonsense. Supersound at all does not affect the image intensifier tube (EPR) the aircraft physically. An example for people like you and other "full-fledged" - the F-22 and F-35 aircraft, which fly at supersonic speeds and have an even smaller image intensifier (EPR). In a word - teach materiel, "our full-fledged" with your "full-fledged" companions in VO, who support your stupidity.


                  And what does the radar say about the detection range of disturbances along the front of a shock sound wave?
                  As I understand it, this is a long-standing problem, for the radar and it is detected by modern AFARs easily and far ...
                  As well as disturbances of the air masses after the flight of the aircraft.

                  And if the ESR of an airplane is the same for an airplane flying with supersonic and supersonic sound under ideal conditions, then the ESR of an object causing enormous disturbances, which is considered to be a complex, increases precisely in the complex.
                  And its full scale can increase by multiple ...
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. +4
                    5 November 2019 11: 37
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    And if the ESR of an airplane is the same for an airplane flying with supersonic and supersonic in ideal conditions, then the EPR of the object,disturbing, which are considered to be a complex - grows precisely in the complex.
                    And its full scale can increase by multiple ...

                    SovAr238A! Sheer stupidity! An attempt by the demagogue to cover up his lie on the EPR of the object with empty nonsense and then say: "I did not say anything about the EPR, and that it is changing, I was talking about the complex of flattening."
                    You went very far in your desire to spit on Russian military equipment with your stupid things. Do not include the word EPR if you are talking about disturbances that do not affect the EPR in any way. In a word, the demagogue, trying to fill the fog with his illiterate opuses, so that the participants in the discussion at VO could not figure out the truth ...
          2. +7
            4 November 2019 01: 48
            Dear Alexander Timokhin! Even correct punctuation errors, it is impossible to agree with you in the following: "In the case of the B-2," supersonic ", which is not particularly necessary in this mode, leaves, which also" catches up "the additional RCS due to the concentration of moisture from the air in the jump front behind the aircraft."
            In supersonic mode EOP (EPR) does not increase, especially at times. And this already casts doubt on your whole statement about stealth:
            Quote: timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin)
            But at the same time, it is added significantly at times - a shorter detection range of such an aircraft of any type of radar, except for the long-wave, which is unsuitable for guiding missiles.

            I tweaked your text a bit. If you want to challenge my claim, please provide a link to the literature, which says the increase or change of the image intensifier tube (EPR) in case of supersonic sound.
        2. -1
          3 November 2019 23: 31
          How is your statement related to your quote?
        3. 0
          4 November 2019 01: 28
          not very good in style, but essentially correct
          In the case of the B-2 goes away ... "supersonic" (which ... "catches up" an additional EPR ...), but is added ... a shorter detection range ....

          Compared to B-1, B-2 removed supersonic sound, but added a shorter detection range.
          The opposition "leaves - is added".
          Confuse
          added ... shorter range
          , stylistically unsuccessful sentence.
          hi
          1. +8
            4 November 2019 02: 37
            Quote: Avior
            In the case of the B-2 goes away ... "supersonic" (which ... "catches up" an additional EPR ...), but is added ... a shorter detection range ....

            Avior, the proposal is not only stylistically incorrect, but also physically - supersonic does not have any effect on the image intensifier tube (ESR) of the aircraft, in a figurative sense it is not meant.
            1. -2
              4 November 2019 03: 07
              I also heard this for the first time
              which also “catches up” additional ESR due to the concentration of moisture from the air in the front of the jump behind the plane.

              I don’t know how true it is, I won’t argue, but does the moisture concentration occur in some cases during the flight, as I understand it? Condensation trail, Prandtl-Glauert effect when passing through a sound barrier and all that?

              Could this affect the EPR at least for a while?
              1. -4
                4 November 2019 20: 22
                Quote: Avior

                Could this affect the EPR at least for a while?


                This effect, even on a subsonic aircraft, increases its detection range by tens to hundreds of times ...
                simply multi-temperature air masses.
                Though over the Mojave Desert.

                1. -4
                  4 November 2019 20: 42
                  as I understand it, it manifests itself most often at close to sound speeds and when switching to supersonic?
                  1. -4
                    4 November 2019 21: 31
                    Quote: Avior
                    as I understand it, it manifests itself most often at close to sound speeds and when switching to supersonic?

                    Far from supersonic ....


                    or even so - the initial

                    [/ Center]
                    1. -3
                      4 November 2019 21: 57
                      I know. but it comes
                      often[i] [/ i] when close to sound
              2. +6
                5 November 2019 11: 49
                Avior (Sergey)! Do not assume something that does not affect the image intensifier (EPR) of the object ... You feed the "fighter" against the Russian technology - SovAr238A (Al) with nonsense, who instantly picks them up, and considers everyone to be fools in the VO. The Prandtl-Glauert effect does not affect the plane’s image intensifier (ESR) at all.
                1. +9
                  5 November 2019 12: 29
                  It is impossible for the submariners to explain that the condensation wake of an airplane moving at transonic speed with high humidity contains exactly as much moisture as in an unperturbed atmosphere - only the aggregate states of the N2O are distinguished, which do not affect the ESR of the aircraft.

                  The problem of increasing the radar visibility of even the inversion track of an aircraft arising from the condensation of additional moisture from the exhaust gases of the turbojet engine is absent, and the B-2 stealth, which is equipped with an acid injection system to suppress the inversion trace solely to reduce optical noticeability.
      3. +6
        4 November 2019 04: 24
        Yes, our strategies are newer than American ones, but how many of them are there now and how many will survive after the start of the conflict. It is not enough to have a dozen good aircraft, you need to bring their number to several hundred. 19 tanker aircraft are few for Russia.
    2. +19
      3 November 2019 19: 52
      Quote: Siberia
      I read it with interest.

      I just didn’t understand where the uncle was in the garden, and where the cues were in elderberry! Comparing the incomparable and negating the obvious in one glass!
      1. -5
        3 November 2019 20: 49
        Comparison of incomparable) yes you are a philosopher laughing A bunch of minuscule run am
        Crossing Europe laughing
        1. +16
          3 November 2019 23: 01
          For example, the a ballistic missile delivered a nuclear strike at an air base where part of the enemy’s bombers and its nuclear bombs were. However, intelligence tools (no matter what) established the enemy’s activity in exporting something from this zone on a large number of trucks. Suppose, at this moment, a plane with a nuclear bomb goes to a nearby secondary target. As the goal is clearly secondaryThere’s no point in spending ICBMs on it; you cannot leave it as it is, since it’s still important. At this point, the bomber can be retargeted, because with a high degree of probability the surviving nuclear bombs are taken out on trucksotherwise, why should they poke around in the zone of radioactive contamination?

          Author, you write scripts for Marvel's films. What is the "secondary goal"? Nuclear war is a war of annihilation. The plans, both ours and the American ones, do not provide for the partial use of nuclear weapons on 1-5-10 enemy targets, and that's all, we expect a response. Nuclear weapons are a doomsday weapon, there will be no freaks taking out the remnants of "what unfinished" arsenal. Anyway, can you imagine what will happen at the site of the airbase after its defeat by 1-5-10 megaton ICBMs? What cars, on what roads ??? To you in a mental hospital. And please, do not write anything else, go quietly to sell buns at McDonald's.
          1. 0
            4 November 2019 18: 46
            In many ways I agree, but not with what you write about the plans - they can be very different. Because then Moscow's missile defense also makes no sense - it will not withstand a massive strike, but if you believe it, it cannot be limited - right? Plans are made based on the capabilities of the enemy (and their own). The idea is to develop your capabilities to the point where the enemy's plans become unrealistic (in terms of winning them). But how to do it better - there are options. And then - the war has different fronts, not only the front of the armed struggle - also political and diplomatic, economic, psychological, etc. And if the attacker can break the will of the enemy to resist with a limited nuclear strike (or if he will believe in the reality of this), then why is such a strike unreal? ... In my opinion, in the article, an even more important thing to discuss is how real The USA is preparing for a nuclear attack and why, why they are doing it. Can they really choose the "cornered rat with nothing to lose" behavior, or are there other options? There is something to discuss without ways to increase the combat value of long-range bombers in a nuclear conflict ... Although this is not superfluous.
          2. -7
            4 November 2019 20: 42
            Quote: maxcor1974

            Author, you write scripts for Marvel's films. What is the "secondary goal"? Nuclear war is a war of annihilation. The plans, both ours and the American ones, do not provide for the partial use of nuclear weapons on 1-5-10 enemy targets, and that's all, we expect a response. Nuclear weapons are a doomsday weapon, there will be no freaks taking out the remnants of "what unfinished" arsenal. Anyway, can you imagine what will happen at the site of the airbase after its defeat by 1-5-10 megaton ICBMs? What cars, on what roads ??? To you in a mental hospital. And please, do not write anything else, go quietly to sell buns at McDonald's.


            Have you ever been interested in nuclear weapons?
            Well there type, see the number of warheads at the adversary, the number of potential targets?
            The power of nuclear warheads?
            And then carry nonsense about some 5 megatons.
            Have you ever seen the size of a 5 megaton warhead?


            Do you understand. that only 15% of Russian cities will be covered by a nuclear strike.
            Do you understand. that only Moscow needs about 80-150 nuclear warheads per 475 ct - to turn it off all ... Do you understand this?
            And there is Peter, Novosib. Kazan, Nizhny, Krasnodar, Samara, Perm, Miass, Omsk. Komsomolsk, Murmansk. Severodvinsk.
            There are hundreds of targets in the form of basing areas for ICBMs, naval bases, strategic airfields.
            \ There are hundreds of hydroelectric power stations, nuclear power plants, thermal power plants - which also need to be destroyed.
            There are hundreds and thousands of water intakes - which also need to be destroyed.
            There are junction stations. industrial site. Mobility reserve warehouses.

            And many need more than one warhead.
            A rocket cannot breed its warheads nationwide. This one for Samara, this one for Miass, this one for Forest, this one for Starry, etc.


            The stock of American missiles will be enough for the destruction of 20% of our military facilities (this is 100% strategic) and not more than 15% of our cities.

            Everything else will be without a blow - and normally survive a nuclear war.
            Neither we nor the Americans - in the case of a full-scale nuclear mutual strike - will perish completely.
            The country will be destroyed - a fact.
            But the people will remain.
            earlier, when each country had warheads of 10 thousand, the apocalypse was still possible, but now. when the number of warheads is less than 1500 - no longer.


            So it's time for you to go to a mental hospital. for carrying nonsense in that in which you don’t understand anything at all while sitting in wet pants.
            1. 0
              1 December 2019 21: 09
              Quote: SovAr238A
              earlier, when each country had warheads of 10 thousand, the apocalypse was still possible, but now. when the number of warheads is less than 1500 - no longer.

              With a 100MT explosion, only about 25kg of free neutrons are formed.
              These 25 kg of free neutrons can be used at the place of delivery for the manufacture of cobalt60 from cobalt59 (Co59) in an amount equal to 25 * 60 = 1500 kg of cobalt60,
              or for the manufacture of 25 * 14 = 350kg beta-active isotope C14.
              The radioactive isotope C14 in the amount of 350 kg can be accumulated in advance in a 1 GW nuclear reactor in 13 years. For comparison, in 2019, 10 power units with a total installed electric capacity of ~ 36 GW are operated at 30 operating nuclear power plants in Russia. The total thermal capacity of Russian NPPs with an efficiency of 30% is ~ 90 GW.
              The total thermal power of Russian military nuclear reactors designed to produce plutonium239, uranium233, and other isotopes is unknown, but the order of magnitude is the same. Respectively. over 13 years these reactors can produce 90 * 0,35tn = 31,5tn of carbon-14.
              To spray 0,35 tons of C14 in the atmosphere, a 1Kt explosion is sufficient, in which C14 partially settles on the ground, partially burns in the Earth's atmosphere with the formation of beta-active carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is used in the food chain for plant growth. If it enters the lungs, C14 will cause lung cancer and death in a year.
              So if necessary - an apocalypse is possible.
          3. +4
            5 November 2019 03: 03
            "What cars, on what roads ??? You to a psychiatric hospital"
            In conditions of mass ionization, only the first blows will be purposeful, and then to whom God will send
          4. -1
            12 November 2020 17: 52
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            They spot the plane taking off over our territory

            And how do they detect it and how do they recognize it?
      2. -5
        4 November 2019 20: 25
        Quote: Tol100v
        Quote: Siberia
        I read it with interest.

        I just didn’t understand where the uncle was in the garden, and where the cues were in elderberry! Comparing the incomparable and negating the obvious in one glass!


        And you lived so many years and did not understand. that the world consists of halftones?
        And what is white and black in explicit form for a long time nowhere?
    3. mvg
      -2
      4 November 2019 06: 24
      four countries have, on the "approach" fifth - India


      Minimum 7 countries. Also France, England, China, North Korea, and the Kyrgyz Republic in Israel.
  2. +3
    3 November 2019 18: 20
    This system is beautiful !!!
    Poetics A
    Pyaterochka ...
    1. -6
      3 November 2019 23: 47
      You will not be appreciated ..
      The author proved the opposite!
      Pi_ndos can keep their strategists in any part of the world ... In this case, there is a triad ... Our strategists are tied and their location is known ... Nonsense about retargeting does not work ... No, you don't need to saw the Swans, they already exist .. .News will be made about five to restore and prepare for the production of PAK YES ... And so they are not particularly needed .... If they make another monster from PAK YES, then such a colossus is also fucking unnecessary .... ... The head of the "wise" leadership is very bad ... If we see the F-35, then they will see the PAK YES .... The maximum take-off weight should be less than 100 tons, a little less is better .. ...
  3. +4
    3 November 2019 18: 23
    Thanks to the author for the detailed article. For me, some things were news.
    1. +6
      3 November 2019 18: 25
      You are welcome. I have long wanted to raise this Temko. Here I raised it.
      1. +8
        4 November 2019 00: 05
        You are welcome. I have long wanted to raise this Temko. Here I raised it.

        Well, then one more question. During the flight of our Tu-95s in the Arctic, 3 F-15s and one KS-135 are attached to them above the North Pole. Changing each other, refueling, they graze our bomber like a sheep to our very border. A fighter with a strategist flight duration. And this is not a fiction, but their real tactics. How many tankers do we have? How many tactical AWACS aircraft of the "Hokkai" type? to hell with him, any AWACS? An-71 was made and left in Ukraine with collapse. And nothing. And without these "auxiliary" aircraft, we have no road through the Arctic. Over the northern Arctic, we are not in charge, but they.
        So it’s not up to bombs, missiles could be knocked out. And the doctrine is simple - unacceptable damage. Note, do not finish off the defeated enemy, but hope that he does not begin the massacre.
        1. -5
          4 November 2019 02: 12
          When flying our Tu-95 in the Arctic, 3 F-15 and one KS-135 are attached to them above the North Pole. Changing each other, refueling, graze our bomber like a sheep to our very border. A fighter with a strategic flight duration. And this is not fiction, but their real tactics.


          I know.

          But this comes from peacetime. They detect the take-off of an airplane still above our territory, and send a patrol like you described to meet it. Sometimes in a group there may also be an AWACS aircraft, which does not appear near the bomber.

          But the fact is that with an exchange of nuclear strikes, all this will not work. In addition, this is where the tactics of not flying, but namely strikes, begins. That is, the radars that are used for initial detection and the base from which the F-15 can take off must be covered with cruise missiles from a bomber, and then a certain "hole" in the airspace appears. There are not many bases in Alaska.

          After such a removal of their radar and airfields, a low-altitude passage to the pole along with the life-giving effect of nuclear explosions over Elmendorf and other similar places will help.
          1. -6
            4 November 2019 21: 01
            Quote: timokhin-aa

            But the fact is that with an exchange of nuclear strikes, all this will not work. In addition, this is where the tactics of not flying, but namely strikes, begins. That is, the radars that are used for initial detection and the base from which the F-15 can take off must be covered with cruise missiles from a bomber, and then a certain "hole" in the airspace appears. There are not many bases in Alaska.

            After such a removal of their radar and airfields, a low-altitude passage to the pole along with the life-giving effect of nuclear explosions over Elmendorf and other similar places will help.


            Will be . everything will be the same.
            In order to ensure the massive take-off of heavy bombers, it is necessary to ensure fuel reserves at airfields.
            Which in the full required quantity will never exist and will never be in peacetime.
            Dozens are needed. if not hundreds of tanks that fit and merge for several days.
            This is all totally controlled.
            additional support measures are also needed at the airfields of fighter and tanker bases.
            Which is also totally controlled.
            And believe me, everything will be ready much in advance.
            And there will be no surprise.

            Elmendorf volley - only possible from the side of the SSBN. Which has a chance of about zero, At least a second missile. SSBNs have a full salvo - the chances are zero.

            we don’t forget that in Alaska there is a missile defense and HARP station.
            Harp is generally an incomprehensible contraption and it may be that ... yes, anything can be over Alaska ...

            But all our nearby airfields are completely flat shut by the Tridents. within 3-10 minutes.
            And Engels - nobody needs it. Its combat value in the case of BP is zero.
            1. +2
              5 November 2019 03: 40
              "Engels is of no use to anyone. His combat value in the case of BP is zero."
              In addition, it turns out that the FSA controls the Tu160 at Engels, they require data on the transfer of the 160s from one workshop to another, when they are modernized in Kazan, ...
              One hundred is very incomprehensible to a sovereign country ...
    2. -7
      3 November 2019 22: 09
      here is Dmitry for his comment for which they are now being denied? justify do not be silent
      1. 0
        4 November 2019 18: 54
        Maybe it’s because not “Hockey” is correct, but “Hawkeye”? wink
  4. +2
    3 November 2019 18: 25
    Horror! When the "naval" specialist takes on the topic of aviation! And don't write in general phrases about something you don't understand ... Strategist!
    1. +6
      3 November 2019 18: 36
      What a tantrum, citizen? Essentially mind.
      1. +6
        3 November 2019 19: 02
        Quote: timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin)
        Currently, the United States is actively improving its nuclear attack facilities, including high-precision SLBMs in its first strike arsenal, carefully study how automated retaliation systems work (“Perimeter”), are widening the gap in efficiency in the battle of their submarines with torpedoes and our ballistic missile submarines with ballistic missiles ...

        timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin)! They sit in the General Staff of the Russian Federation and carefully study ...Submariner and submariner in Africa!
        Quote: timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin)
        In addition, it is necessary to resume training on the use of free-falling bombs.

        Yes, you should be in the General Staff of the Russian Federation. After all, no one knows this!
        Quote: timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin)
        I would like to be able to retarget in flight and the rocket, but this can give rise to a serious vulnerability of the rocket to cyberattacks and such an improvement should be taken with caution.

        The babble of a submariner who knows nothing about the design of such systems ...
        And so the whole article is riddled with general illiterate phrases from the Internet.
        1. +2
          3 November 2019 19: 28
          I am not a submariner.

          Essentially mind please.
          1. +3
            3 November 2019 19: 57
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Essentially mind please.

            Ambitious illiteracy!
            1. -5
              3 November 2019 22: 35
              You? Well, it happens.
            2. -5
              4 November 2019 21: 18
              Quote: Tol100v
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Essentially mind please.

              Ambitious illiteracy!

              How do you confirm?
              Or just logged in?
          2. -7
            3 November 2019 20: 52
            Yes, there is nothing to argue with him) I distributed the minuses to everyone, making a smart appearance laughing
        2. +10
          4 November 2019 01: 19
          Actually, I have known for thirty years (or even more) about the "possibility of retargeting missiles" in the air (after the launch). Even in the Soviet Union there were such missiles. And now Putin said about this: "The product moves in a cloud of plasma (the temperature is more than 2 thousand degrees Celsius), the speed is greater ... than the speed of sound, and at the same time the unit is controlled." And if it is possible to control the product, then there is the possibility of entering new data.
          1. -6
            4 November 2019 02: 25
            No, you didn’t ruin the chapel. It was before you, in the 14 century laughing
          2. -1
            4 November 2019 18: 58
            Block management does not mean external control. Correction of the course / pitch by the control system according to the guidance / navigation system - this is also considered control, right?
      2. +11
        3 November 2019 19: 37
        A very strange article ...
      3. +11
        3 November 2019 20: 26
        Seriously, are you an active specialist in the field of strategic aviation and the methods, methods and strategies for their application? Do you work in the General Staff of the Russian Federation and have access to documents and doctrines? I seriously, without irony, but please give an answer
        1. -7
          3 November 2019 22: 36
          1. Specialist.
          2. Not from GSH. The General Staff considers everything in a different way, there, mainly from the ground forces, comrades command, sailors and pilots in the supporting roles.
          1. +8
            4 November 2019 16: 53
            You have absolutely no idea who and how works in the General Staff!
            1. -6
              4 November 2019 21: 47
              Quote: Alex1973
              You have absolutely no idea who and how works in the General Staff!


              I have in my work several former employees from the General Staff.
              even those. who once served in the Strategic Rocket Forces. Aviation, graduated from the Academy and served in the General Staff - about words like network-centricity just turn purple.

              All. they understand everything - but they cannot say anything.
              for they remember that it is complete.
              1. -7
                5 November 2019 00: 06
                Quote: SovAr238A
                Quote: Alex1973
                You have absolutely no idea who and how works in the General Staff!


                I have in my work several former employees from the General Staff.


                What made you put a minus?
                The fact that people retire, leave for their native land. renting out Moscow apartments, and are looking for a job, including mine areas?
                And if a retired colonel of the General Staff finds a decent job for me. in which I fully realize his civic potential - is it bad for him?
                Why are the cons then?
                I certainly do not care for the cons. but I hire those. WHO IS LOOKING FOR WORK!
                And if among them are graduates of the academy, then why can't I hire them?
                1. +5
                  5 November 2019 03: 47
                  "And if there are academy graduates among them, why can't I hire them?"
                  I didn’t understand anything, about - therefore, just in case of fire, I set + ... laughing
    2. -5
      3 November 2019 18: 59
      Sound your thoughts. And then they threw it on the fan and that's it.
      1. +12
        3 November 2019 19: 17
        Mephody (Dmitry)! I don’t presume to write articles on closed data and assume what I can’t find material about, otherwise, in another case, an article of the same level will be obtained on the assumption that this is not true ...
        1. -10
          3 November 2019 19: 29
          Yes, you are a storyteller simply, on closed topics, he writes articles, well laughing

          Closed are information, not topics.
          1. +8
            3 November 2019 19: 45
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Closed are information, not topics.

            timokhin-aa, I did not assume your ignorance of the Russian language! tongue
          2. +13
            3 November 2019 22: 18
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Closed are information, not topics.

            =========
            Alas! "Topics" are also closed!
          3. +12
            4 November 2019 00: 02
            Yes, you are a storyteller simply, on closed topics, he writes articles, well

            No storyteller is after all you. Powder everyone’s brains with ridiculous versions of the use of nuclear weapons from strategists on Americans fleeing after an initial nuclear strike with the remnants of their nuclear arsenal !!! What did you smoke before that? Wasn’t it easier to read the principles of the use of nuclear weapons? There can be only one nuclear strike (it doesn’t matter whether it is preemptive or retaliatory), with all that is, at the enemy’s nuclear facilities (in order to reduce the response) and its industrial centers. At the same time, both we and the Americans have a firm belief that there will still be an answer, and that is why the earth is still inhabited by us humans. The meaning of the nuclear triad is simple to the primitive - the more and more diverse the carriers, the greater the chance of a retaliatory strike to inflict unacceptable damage on the enemy. And while the general staffs in our countries are calculating mutual destruction on the exercises, we live.
            1. -5
              4 November 2019 02: 23
              Wasn’t it easier to read the principles of the use of nuclear weapons?


              So I read. American
            2. -7
              4 November 2019 21: 49
              Quote: maxcor1974
              And while the general staffs in our countries are calculating mutual destruction on the exercises, we live.

              you then include the head on the topic of mutual destruction. adding up the number of targets and the number of warheads, as well as the principles of operation of the delivery vehicles of these warheads ...

              Well, that would not be written in cowards ...
          4. +1
            5 November 2019 21: 28
            "Closed" - everything happens.
            And even "Discovery". hi
        2. -7
          5 November 2019 16: 42
          That is, in essence, you have nothing to object to, there are no arguments, but you disagree. Clear.
    3. +12
      3 November 2019 23: 11
      Totally agree with you. He served in the Strategic Missile Forces back in the 90s. Our troops are disposable, we are the last to start and ... as the president said: "everyone is in paradise."
    4. -8
      4 November 2019 19: 47
      Quote: Something
      Horror! When the "naval" specialist takes on the topic of aviation! And don't write in general phrases about something you don't understand ... Strategist!

      You are obviously a strategist! lol Except for almost undisguised rudeness - nothing! Reading is disgusting! Correctly you are asked to object on the merits, and not on the principle "who are you".
  5. +3
    3 November 2019 18: 29
    Not for us American developments, Russia says that it is not the first to use nuclear weapons. And in combat training the Air Force has always surpassed the Air Force of the USSR / RF.
    1. -5
      3 November 2019 18: 36
      Well, yes, where do the peasants Sivolapim go to us - and on airplanes, right?
      1. +2
        4 November 2019 19: 08
        Here is another question for you. Well, the main air defense forces (radar first of all), say, were destroyed by the first strikes of ICBMs. Then bombers with free-falling bombs fly up. But the probability of survival of anti-aircraft defense systems such as TOR and Shell is higher! They cannot be targets for ICBMs, right? And they sort of deal with bombs. Or not? Just wondering why free-falling bombs?
        1. +4
          5 November 2019 21: 39
          Moreover, the military air defense is very long-range and diverse, and almost every launcher has its own radar (albeit not too powerful, but its own) and is capable of combining into clusters under the single control of one of the machines (at least with "Buks" so, and this is a medium-range complex) ...
    2. Alf
      +3
      3 November 2019 21: 28
      Quote: bars1
      Russia states that it is not the first to use nuclear weapons.

      Doctrine of the 2018 year.
      1. -1
        4 November 2019 03: 15
        it needs to be fixed somewhere in the form of a splash screen on the site, what would everyone read at the entrance.
        and then as soon as the discussion is in the style of "how to sink an aircraft carrier", so products with special warheads rush to the aircraft carrier in herds in the comments ...
        1. 0
          4 November 2019 13: 00
          Quote: Avior
          and then as soon as the discussion is in the style of "how to sink an aircraft carrier", so products with special warheads rush to the aircraft carrier in herds in the comments ...

          Our missiles, as we want and launch, especially since to destroy a full-fledged AUG, there will not be enough special ammunition ...
          1. -3
            4 November 2019 15: 03
            There is a military doctrine in which their application is stipulated.
            Unless you have private ones ...
            1. 0
              4 November 2019 19: 22
              Quote: Avior
              There is a military doctrine in which their application is stipulated.

              Excuse me, but how do the announced points of the military doctrine contradict the fact that in some particular case, to destroy the AUG, it is possible to use a "swarm of CDs with special warheads", which specific point of the doctrine denies this?
              1. -4
                4 November 2019 20: 05
                the one in which the use of nuclear weapons is only possible
                1. in response to the application of the enemy first.
                2. with an immediate threat to the statehood of Russia
                in both cases there will be no time to deal with aircraft carriers.
                not to mention the fact that the doctrine precludes the use of it specifically and only against aircraft carriers.
                or a full nuclear war, or forget about special warheads.
                1. +1
                  4 November 2019 20: 31
                  Quote: Avior
                  with a direct threat to the statehood of Russia
                  in both cases there will be no time to deal with aircraft carriers.
                  not to mention the fact that the doctrine precludes the use of it specifically and only against aircraft carriers.

                  You have some kind of eclipse. And where did someone say that rockets will fight ONLY with AUG?
                  Quote: Avior
                  or a full nuclear war, or forget about special warheads.

                  Well, here the Americans will not agree with you. They then allow limited nuclear war.
                  1. -3
                    4 November 2019 20: 40
                    I'm alright.
                    I'm not saying that global and unlimited.
                    but full-fledged, and aircraft carriers in it will play completely different roles.
                    I have not seen a single scenario when describing the fight against aircraft carriers on the site, which would begin with the introductory "full-fledged nuclear war is underway."
                    Always a conventional weapon.
                    However, I do not mind if
                    it needs to be fixed somewhere in the form of a splash screen on the site, what would everyone read at the entrance.
                    and then as soon as the discussion is in the style of "how to sink an aircraft carrier", so products with special warheads rush to the aircraft carrier in herds in the comments ...

                    to add, with the exception of discussions of combat with aircraft carriers, in the context of a full-fledged nuclear war.
                    And about "Well, the Americans will disagree with you. They then allow a limited nuclear war" - so they almost completely got rid of tactical nuclear weapons.
                    1. +1
                      5 November 2019 02: 12
                      Quote: Avior
                      so they almost completely got rid of tactical nuclear weapons.

                      Yes? Here is the key word "practically" ... NATO recently published a map of the storage locations of these "practically" completely "destroyed" American weapons and this proves that they exist. Not only that, they also train their NATO allies in its use ...
                      1. -1
                        5 November 2019 02: 29
                        a couple of hundred units of free-falling bombs.
                        A relic of the Soviet era in case of the invasion of hordes of Mongol barbarians smile to Europe and to guarantee NATO allies that they will not be left face to face with the Soviet troops. With the Russian tactical arsenal can not be compared.
                        Now for the States, like a suitcase without a handle.
                      2. 0
                        5 November 2019 04: 21
                        Quote: Avior
                        Relic of the soviet era

                        Which they are upgrading
                        Quote: Avior
                        With the Russian tactical arsenal can not be compared.

                        Are there numbers for comparison? Somehow this data is not disclosed by the wrong side. So, what we know about bombs, but we do not know about special warheads for the same "Tomahawks" or about the number of 155-mm and 210-mm special warheads.
                        Also, you should not discount two more nuclear powers of the NATO bloc, which have their own tactical nuclear weapons, these are France and Great Britain
                        And by and large I don’t give a damn about how many nuclear weapons they have now, I know that having such weapons with us is a necessary measure to somehow level out NATO’s overwhelming superiority in conventional forces and means before us
          2. -10
            4 November 2019 21: 54
            Quote: svp67
            Quote: Avior
            and then as soon as the discussion is in the style of "how to sink an aircraft carrier", so products with special warheads rush to the aircraft carrier in herds in the comments ...

            Our missiles, as we want and launch, especially since to destroy a full-fledged AUG, there will not be enough special ammunition ...


            To deliver 1 special ammunition - you need:
            1. to release a couple of hundred missiles with special ammunition (because hundreds of others will not reach),
            2. from hundreds of rocket carriers equipped with special ammunition (because hundreds of others will not fly) ,,
            3. from a dozen airfields equipped for storing special ammunition (of which there are only a few).
            4. Provided with fuel for hundreds of aircraft at the same time (which is unrealistic to be invisible in peacetime conditions, even in the military there is definitely no chance, because no one will allow dozens of railway tanks to the military airfield).
            5. fiction.

            Version of fairy tales. how one nuclear missile changes the whole world. a fairy tale shaped like a "spherical horse in a vacuum" ...
        2. -9
          4 November 2019 19: 16
          Here it wiped cheers crackers nose, congratulations)))))
    3. +1
      4 November 2019 17: 24
      Well, if it says, then of course ...
  6. +5
    3 November 2019 18: 33
    Something dragged from PAK YES.
    1. +11
      3 November 2019 18: 37
      It is very difficult to make a bomber. And very, very expensive.
      1. xax
        +6
        3 November 2019 22: 35
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        It is very difficult to make a bomber. And very, very expensive.

        Is a submarine easier and cheaper?
        1. -9
          3 November 2019 23: 53
          Not cheaper if you compare a boat and a bomber jacket.

          But to come up with a new bomber is more difficult than a new boat. For a combination of reasons.
          1. +8
            4 November 2019 00: 25
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            it’s harder to come up with a new bomber than a new boat

            Techniques are not invented, but constructed. Pouring assertions without justification is stupid behavior.
            1. -6
              4 November 2019 02: 13
              Well, compare the number of countries that master submarine spoons and those that master strategic aviation.
              1. +8
                4 November 2019 10: 00
                Why should this be necessarily connected with the complexity of production?
                1. -9
                  4 November 2019 22: 06
                  Quote: Geo⁣
                  Why should this be necessarily connected with the complexity of production?


                  Because. that you first need to predict the application methodology. then the concept of application. then transfer it to the scientific and technical base, and only then to the production site itself.
                  And there are a couple of hundred points.
                  And if at least one item is unclaimed - then everything is canceled.
                  1. +8
                    4 November 2019 23: 28
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    points there are a couple of hundred

                    That's it. Why shouldn't any one of these "couple hundred" be the defining point? Why not all 199, apart from the complexity of production? Why all of a sudden the complexity of production? The author believes that, for example, a country (if you want - countries) that produces objectively the best civil aircraft at the moment, a country that once put (countries that put) on the wing of the Concorde - is unable to design and build a bomber? And so on and so forth.
                    If for the sake of your favorite theory you have to turn a blind eye to objective reality, then the theory you cherished is most likely complete nonsense.
                    1. -9
                      5 November 2019 00: 11
                      Quote: Geo⁣
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      points there are a couple of hundred

                      That's it. Why shouldn't any one of these "couple hundred" be the defining point? Why not all 199, apart from the complexity of production? Why all of a sudden the complexity of production? The author believes that, for example, a country (if you want - countries) that produces objectively the best civil aircraft at the moment, a country that once put (countries that put) on the wing of the Concorde - is unable to design and build a bomber? And so on and so forth.
                      If for the sake of your favorite theory you have to turn a blind eye to objective reality, then the theory you cherished is most likely complete nonsense.


                      Well, tell us a country that does not consider itself a global hegemon / strona resisting a global hegemon - which in principle needs a strategic bomber at the moment ...

                      such were England with their Volcanoes, and France with their Mirages-4.
                      Now, then, who needs all this weightless with the costs of five tens of billions of dollars for development.
                      then the production of scanty.

                      and terribly expensive maintenance in the next 30 years, provided that each year of maintenance = equal to the cost of development.
                      And in the conditions of England and France - everything is almost near zero - for all their development of strategic bombers is comparable in combat expediency with conventional tactical fighter-bombers .. at a multiple of tens and hundreds of times less than the cost of operating tactical fighters.
                      Are you personally ready
                      1. xax
                        +9
                        5 November 2019 00: 23
                        Citizen, what are you arguing with? Or are you pouring out the number of consciousness?
              2. +2
                5 November 2019 07: 46
                Alexander, well, you are already completely upset. Already instead of the "boat" you have "spoons".
                Straight according to Freud?
            2. -4
              4 November 2019 19: 13
              No, smart people think first, and only then do something. But just the opposite - this is stupid behavior.
              1. +5
                4 November 2019 21: 12
                Quote: Alexey LK
                at first they think, and only then do something.

                It would be nice for you to start following this rule when you write posts on this site. Thinking and thinking are two different verbs. If you don’t feel the difference, look in the dictionary. Inventing - you think, but thinking - you do not have to come up with.
                1. -4
                  5 November 2019 01: 19
                  1. Where have you seen my posts on this site? Or are posts and comments the same for you, are you our philologist? 2. Yes, I used the verb "think", naturally assuming that this process will have a result, as I usually do. And with you, apparently, this process often ends with nothing, since you so focus on this and judge by yourself. 3. The most important thing is that in fact you have not objected to anything. By the way, a good illustration of mental activity and creativity when creating new samples of technology is in Nikola Tesla's interview - I advise you to find and read it if you are really interested. It is even sometimes called that: the Tesla method. Good luck!
                  1. xax
                    +3
                    5 November 2019 01: 31
                    Quote: Alexey LK
                    1. Where did you see my posts on this site? Or are posts and comments the same for you, are you our philologist?

                    What are you carrying? Your fictional division of the inscriptions on this site - leave it for the teachings of your own grandmother. Post - from English. "post" is everything.

                    Quote: Alexey LK
                    I used the verb "think", naturally assuming that this process will have a result, as I usually do

                    And this result, as we see, is very sad.

                    Quote: Alexey LK
                    in fact, you did not object

                    It is pointless to object to a person who communicates with himself, not at all stupid surrounding reality.
                    1. -1
                      5 November 2019 01: 46
                      Quote: xax
                      Post - from English. "post" (message)

                      What is the name of the section? That's right, "Comments". What is written on the button? That's right, "Post a Comment". And you can invent any terms for your convenience. PS Why grandma? She survived the war and famine, from the age of 16 she worked at Donetsk metallurgical plant ... Kingdom of Heaven!
        2. -3
          4 November 2019 13: 03
          Quote: xax
          Is a submarine easier and cheaper?

          Now yes. Production of submarines, even in the worst years, almost did not stop, unlike bombers. For the sake of interest, look when the last Tu-95, Tu-22M, Tu-160 were released ... How many people were left who previously produced them, where is the rigging and equipment, where are allied enterprises, where is the USSR in general?
          1. -10
            4 November 2019 19: 27
            The Union of bonds has sunk into oblivion as 30 years, and you all grieve ........ more positive, comrade, more positive)) !!!
            1. +1
              4 November 2019 19: 32
              Quote: Alien From
              The Union of bonds has sunk into oblivion as 30 years, and you all grieve ........ more positive, comrade, more positive)) !!!

              But I see you all celebrate this event, and work when you are going to /
              1. -9
                4 November 2019 19: 34
                And what’s the excuse for you? The article for parasitism rested with the Union, wake up finally !!!
                1. +2
                  4 November 2019 19: 39
                  Quote: Alien From
                  And what’s the excuse for you?

                  Don't you find it strange that you were the first to get involved in my "woeful affairs", but now you are surprised that someone is interested in yours. It is necessary to lead more modestly, more modestly
                  1. -7
                    4 November 2019 19: 41
                    And the comments for discussion or can communicate by mail of the USSR prefer .......
          2. +3
            4 November 2019 21: 15
            Quote: svp67
            Production of submarines, even in the worst years, almost did not stop, unlike bombers

            Why is this necessarily related to the complexity of production? We built rockets and nuclear reactors even in the worst years, but the production of, say, electric kettles was covered with a copper basin. This is probably because teapots are more difficult to produce?
          3. -7
            4 November 2019 22: 12
            Quote: svp67
            Quote: xax
            Is a submarine easier and cheaper?

            Now yes. Production of submarines, even in the worst years, almost did not stop, unlike bombers. For the sake of interest, look when the last Tu-95, Tu-22M, Tu-160 were released ... How many people were left who previously produced them, where is the rigging and equipment, where are allied enterprises, where is the USSR in general?


            Everything is much more complicated ...
            impossible even for big money. to repeat what was before - it is only possible to repeat the already obsolete for a very long time and it costs a lot of money ...
            The difference between large and colossal is a couple of orders of magnitude.
            Tu-160M ​​= will cost about 120 billion rubles apiece.
            Less will not be.
            1. +8
              4 November 2019 23: 43
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Tu-160M ​​= will cost about 120 billion rubles apiece

              Like 4 pieces of an A380. Emirates, for example, has 65 in the park. It turns out that a civilian carrier from a country with a population of less than 5 million people could build a whole regiment of strategic bombers. What about Russia?
              Everything is relative.
              1. -3
                4 November 2019 23: 54
                Quote: Geo⁣
                Like 4 pieces of an A380. Emirates, for example, has 65 in the park. It turns out that a civilian carrier from a country with a population of less than 5 million people could build a whole regiment of strategic bombers

                Do not build, but buy)
  7. -1
    3 November 2019 18: 33
    Good article. There are doubts about the higher strength of the B-52 (but this is to narrow specialists), the right proposal, in my opinion, to assign strategic tasks to the Tu-22М3М (now this is the way out). Well, if you dream, it would be nice to complete the entire program for the construction of the Tu-160 and PAK-DA that would not disappear.
    1. -2
      3 November 2019 18: 38
      proposal for the assignment of strategic tasks to the Tu-22М3М (now this is the way out)


      They need refueling in the air at least and they don’t have a flight mode with enveloping the terrain. The plane needs to be redone.

      Although generally true.
      1. -14
        3 November 2019 19: 07
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        proposal for the assignment of strategic tasks to the Tu-22М3М (now this is the way out)


        They need refueling in the air at least and they don’t have a flight mode with enveloping the terrain. The plane needs to be redone.

        Although generally true.

        The Tu-22 cabin looks as advanced as the Tu-95 ... They don’t need refueling, but it’s time to break it
        1. 0
          3 November 2019 19: 32
          Even the Tu-95 is not to be scrapped, and the cabin also looks on the Tu-160.

          Avionics changes if necessary.
          1. -11
            3 November 2019 19: 37
            And there is still no such need in your opinion?. On the street is 2020 and there are miracles from the 60s of the last century. What ultra-low flights with a rounding of the terrain on the Tu-22? .. go see how it broke in half when you "goat". sorry for your pilots?
            and the cab also looks on the Tu-160.
            Exactly...
            1. +3
              3 November 2019 20: 38
              On the street 2020 year and there are miracles from the 60 years of the last century
              Is this a Tu-22M3 "from the 60s of the last century"? belay However! .. Just to sketch
              1. -13
                3 November 2019 20: 45
                And from which?
                https://www.google.com/search?q=фото+кабины+ту-22м3&oq=фото+кабины+ту-&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.8171j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=OZuBBaDvD7UWxM:
                1. +8
                  3 November 2019 20: 51
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  And from which?
                  https://www.google.com/search?q=фото+кабины+ту-22м3&oq=фото+кабины+ту-&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.8171j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=OZuBBaDvD7UWxM:

                  What are you throwing Google links at me? Tu-22М3 has been in operation since the 1983 year, you wrote about the 60 year. Moreover, they wrote in a derogatory manner. IMHO, a typical sketch.
                  I caught you for the tongue, but you continue to get out. request
                  1. -13
                    3 November 2019 20: 55
                    We learn materiel. The first experienced Tu-22М3 made its first flight on June 20 1977 of the year. After the completion of the flight test program Tu-22М3 from 1978 of the year is launched into mass production
                    1. +8
                      3 November 2019 21: 28
                      Learning materiel

                      Ok, memory failed. Well, then you refresh the knowledge of the materiel winked
                      Indeed, the first test flight was made by 20.06.1977, mass production began in 1978, but in final form adopted в March 1989 (information according to PJSC Tupolev).
                      In any case, neither 1978 nor 1989 is obviously not 60, as you wrote. request
                      Will you dodge further? wink
                      1. -15
                        3 November 2019 21: 31
                        Final view had nothing to do with avionics. How to deliver systems developed back in 60 -so and still stand
                      2. +6
                        3 November 2019 21: 36
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Final view had nothing to do with avionics. How to deliver systems developed back in 60 -so and still stand

                        And the principle of an aircraft heavier than air and with a fixed wing has been unchanged since the time of Mozhaisk and the Wright brothers, and this can be reduced. laughing
                        I understand you, you will dodge to the last, as I thought hi
                        I wish you hello!
                      3. -5
                        4 November 2019 23: 38
                        Quote: Dude

                        And the principle of an aircraft heavier than air and with a fixed wing has been unchanged since the time of Mozhaisk and the Wright brothers, and this can be reduced. laughing
                        I understand you, you will dodge to the last, as I thought hi
                        I wish you hello!

                        And the principles of designing avionics systems from which years?
                        When are TK written?
                        Based on what technological principles are they formed?
                        so really Tu-22M3 really from the 60s ...
                        Nothing new in it. neither the glass cabin, nor the avionics of the latest on the basis of the latest processors, the latest achievements of science and technology, it is not and will not be ...

                        And the Town Hall is completely right, and you are in a complete puddle.
                      4. +1
                        5 November 2019 13: 15
                        ... neither the glass cabin, nor the avionics of the latest on the basis of the latest processors, the latest achievements of science and technology in it and will not...
                        Grandma Wang, are you still with us? And I, a sinful thing, thought you had already died, God forgive me laughing
                      5. -1
                        4 November 2019 19: 20
                        This is a disguise. There, under the dials with arrows - iPhones are hidden. Is it clear to you? In general, nuclear weapons are generally weapons of the "40s of the last century." Relax already.
            2. -1
              3 November 2019 22: 37
              Did I write something about enveloping the terrain on the Tu-95? What is the habit of people commenting on not read, but voices in their heads?

              There is a need, yes.
              1. -7
                3 November 2019 22: 43
                I’m talking about the Tu-22. Or didn’t you write this?
                itata: timokhin-aa
                proposal for the assignment of strategic tasks to the Tu-22М3М (now this is the way out)


                They need refueling in the air at least and they don’t have a flight mode with enveloping the terrain. The plane needs to be redone.

                Although generally true
            3. 0
              4 November 2019 19: 46
              Quote: Town Hall
              On the street in 2020 and there are miracles from the 60s of the last century.

              Your knowledge on this issue is far from reality. Now in service are the Tu-22M3, this modification went into series only from the mid 70's
              Quote: Town Hall
              What kind of ultra-low flights with a rounding of the terrain on the Tu-22? .. go see how it broke in half during the "goat"

              And knowledge in this matter is generally "below the plinth". And what does the accident during the "hard landing" and round-trip flights have to do with it? Do you really think that when bending around the terrain, no, yes no, but you have to touch the surface of the ground and bounce off it?
              Quote: Town Hall
              Exactly...

              But, who knows how she now looks on the Tu-22M3M?
              1. -4
                4 November 2019 20: 03
                Quote: svp67

                Your knowledge on this issue is far from reality. Now in service are the Tu-22M3, this modification went into series only from the mid 70's

                Yes, yours will be better. The modification went into series in the mid-70s. Yes, only the modifications concerned the replacement of engines. And the breo, as it was from the 60s, remained that one.
                Quote: svp67
                And knowledge in this matter in general "below the plinth

                I see that you have a skirting board. It turned out that the design limit for overloads was 3,5 G. And there was enough 5 G for landing to break in half. What low-speed high-speed flights with relief envelope do you rave with such overload restrictions? He’ll fall apart around the first hill
                1. 0
                  4 November 2019 20: 29
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  Yes, only the modifications concerned the replacement of engines. And the Breo, as it was from the 60s, remained that one.

                  Well DO NOT MIX, You don’t even notice that this modification is even outwardly different
                  from the previous one ... not to mention the rest.
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  It turned out that the design limit for overloads on this device was 3,5 G. And there was enough 5 G on landing to break in half

                  But this is not a fighter, and it is designed for 3, 5 of its total weight. Look how over Minsk pulled up
                2. +4
                  5 November 2019 01: 17
                  This is how I look at aviation practitioners on the dumb site; I’m also not special for 15 years in civilian aviation.
                  1. Mechanics when using nuclear weapons are preferable to electronics because of a powerful EM pulse. (military specialists should know and remember)
                  2 avionics of 50-70 years was calculated on operation in the conditions of application of nuclear weapons, even in civil aviation.
          2. +13
            3 November 2019 23: 10
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Even the Tu-95 is not to be scrapped, and the cabin also looks on the Tu-160.
            Avionics changes if necessary.

            ========
            GosNIIAS introduced a prototype control panel for the upgraded Tu-160:

            On existing Tu-150:
        2. -2
          3 November 2019 20: 24
          Will you fly on a stupa?
          1. -18
            3 November 2019 20: 50
            Why fly on such anachronisms? The author of the entire article was tormented to explain the need for the air part of the "triad", but apart from the garbage about the breakthrough of air defense at ultra-low altitudes in order to drop free-falling nuclear bombs after !!!))) exchange of ICBM strikes, I could not think of anything.
            1. +4
              3 November 2019 21: 07
              To fly on "anachronisms" with a rounding of the relief is generally a little feasible task, in addition, the range suffers greatly. But the point is basically, as I understood, not about this, but about the high degree of flexibility of the aviation component of the triad and survivability due to the possibility of withdrawing this part of the strategic nuclear forces from under the first strike. And then, who said that strategists are only for the second strike? The first one (in the case of PAK YES) is quite possible if we can, for example, manage to hit the ch.z. Mexican border. But these are my fantasies, the General Staff and the bulk of the audience may disagree with me.
              And "anachronisms" for another 15-30 years will justify themselves.
              1. -12
                3 November 2019 21: 12
                The SSBNs with ICBMs have all the necessary flexibility and vitality. The aviation part of the triad is just that the anachronism from 40 / 50 / 60 when other delivery vehicles were either completely absent or only in the initial stages of development. Starting with 70's, strategic aviation became a suitcase without a pen
      2. +9
        3 November 2019 20: 05
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The plane needs to be redone.

        From the beginning you glue the A-1 or A-2 glider (which is more complicated) and then remake the Tu-22М3М !, or the latest modifications of the 160's! By the way, such machines in the world were not created by anyone!
      3. +3
        3 November 2019 20: 18
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        They need air refueling at least

        Tu-22М3М- I wrote about him, and the terrain around the style in the style of a la FB-111 for the strategist is unnecessary, enough EW
      4. Alf
        +2
        3 November 2019 21: 30
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        They need air refueling at least

        During deep modernization in the appearance of the Tu-22М3М, the missile-bombers plan to equip refueling rods in the air, an informed source said. About this writes Interfax-AVN.

        "Air refueling rods will be installed on the new Tu-22M3M bombers. After the signing of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty in 1979 with the United States (OSV-2), these rods were removed from combat aircraft, and they were not installed on new ones," he said interlocutor of the agency.

        According to him, the equipment for refueling in flight was installed on the first prototype Tu-22М3М, which was rolled out in Kazan on August 16. And subsequently, all deeply upgraded aircraft will receive refueling rods.

        "The installation of new equipment for refueling will significantly increase the combat range of the Tu-22M3M and its flight range. It will be comparable to strategic missile carriers," the source said.
        1. -6
          3 November 2019 22: 38
          As usual, the average VO user does not understand the difference between "do" and "done".
          1. Alf
            +3
            3 November 2019 22: 56
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            As usual, the average VO user does not understand the difference between "do" and "done".

            Are you talking to me ?
    2. -4
      4 November 2019 12: 48
      Our Tu-22M3M will fall apart all in 10 years, they are not new, but old with new avionics .... But the glider is old, they will not change it ... Of the 60 remaining aircraft, 30 will not be recruited, because they need to extend the life, at least for about 6 years, and they all barely breathe .... A long cigar-shaped fuselage with huge landing loads, a small loaded wing, and also with a rotary assembly ... All this modernization is connected with the fact that the complex is installed on it, like on Tu -160M ​​... and from complete hopelessness. One plus: after the decommissioning of the Tu-22M3M, many spare blocks for the Tu-160M ​​will remain ... Before the release of the new complex, 2/3 Tu-160 were without blocks ... The complex did not work for them, the old blocks were not working .. . Make a new complex and restore combat aircraft from peaceful Swans ....
      1. -1
        4 November 2019 17: 05
        You know a lot about what is being modernized and what is not? Learn the materiel, go to Kazan, you will learn a lot for yourself! And, by the way, the Air Force is armed with 75 Tu-22 m3, this is the state, about 50 supernumerary ...
        1. -4
          4 November 2019 17: 50
          I am not a scout. I use open sources and my experience. For instance :

          https://militaryarms.ru/armii-mira/vvs-rossii/#h2_3

          https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6748751

          I analyze the state and identify trends.
          Flying TU-22M3 and combat-ready TU-22M3 are so different things that it’s even hard for you to imagine, judging by your unreasonable language.
  8. -3
    3 November 2019 18: 34
    Alexander! Bravo! Everything is laid out on shelves. I especially liked the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of strategic bombers and the final conclusion:
    The situation in the world is heating up. A formal approach when we believe in the fact that the presence of bombs and aircraft gives us combat aircraft, exhausted itself completely. Just as having a piano at home does not make a person a pianist, so the presence of bombers, missiles and bombs does not mean that the aerospace forces have strategic aviation in the full sense of the term. You must also be able to apply it properly.
    In order for us to really have it, shock potential of an aviation component SNF should be brought to the maximum possible. And preferably as soon as possible

    I was always amazed at the wisdom of Churchill's phrase:
    Generals always prepare for the last war ...

    And I think that you have noticed everything correctly, but do we have people with a broad outlook and imagination who are able to at least somehow imagine the course of future wars? Can they calculate the maximum of situations and equip our army with the weapons that will be in demand? Will they be able to give the order to use these same strategic nuclear forces at that very hour "X"?
    hi
  9. -13
    3 November 2019 18: 36
    The situation in the world is heating up.


    This is not the situation, this is paranoia.
    1. +4
      3 November 2019 19: 09
      1. The United States has reduced the power of the undermining of warheads on SLBMs with a simultaneous increase in their accuracy so that SLBMs can be used during the first strike. Google W76-1 superfuse. This program is almost done. This is cutting down on the value of SLBMs in the containment system, since they become unsuitable for a countervalue strike.
      2. The United States is increasing the accuracy of nuclear bombs, while simultaneously reducing the power of detonation, this applies to both types of bombs, and B-63 and B-83.
      3. The United States is investing in missile defense, although it is obvious that it is impossible to create a missile defense that will hit a massive volley. But you can one that will dump a few surviving missiles fired on American territory.
      4. The US has come up with a far-fetched pretext from the INF Treaty and plans to withdraw from START-3.
      5. US withdraws from open skies treaty.
      6. Congress lifted the ban on the creation of ultra low-molecular-mass nuclear charges, which allows the resumption of the SADM program.

      If this does not bother you, then admit that you personally saw elves from a wonderful fairy forest.
      1. -5
        3 November 2019 19: 23
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        If this does not bother you


        I am old enough to remember the SDI, the refusal of negotiations on the INF Treaty, the deployment of Pershing in Europe. Then yes, the situation was heating up.

        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The United States is investing in missile defense, although it is obvious that it is impossible to create a missile defense that will hit a massive volley. But you can one that will dump a few surviving missiles


        How everything started. Before creating a missile defense system that is guaranteed to "knock down a few surviving missiles," you must at least be sure that only "a few missiles" will survive. Because if only a few dozen survive, then several missiles that have broken through (we consider the effectiveness of the missile defense system to be 90%) will create hell. The question of why the States should take such a risk, I do not even ask.

        Quote: timokhin-aa
        US withdraws from open skies treaty.


        Trump, of course, full <censored cut>but so far it has not even been submitted to Congress.
        1. -5
          3 November 2019 19: 37
          How everything started. Before creating a missile defense system that is guaranteed to "knock down a few surviving missiles," you must at least be sure that only "a few missiles" will survive.


          See paragraph 1,2,6 from my list. Do you have any other explanation for this than the desire to reduce the return volley to the feasible for missile defense?

          Because if only a few dozens survive, then several rockets that burst (we consider the effectiveness of the 90% missile defense) will arrange a uniform hell.


          Well, what uniform hell? Well, half a million American citizens will die. What the hell is this?

          But then the President of the United States will be able to call Beijing and say something like "Hey, narrow-eyed, you haven't played superpower there, have you?" And the chairman of the Communist Party of China answered him: "Yes, sir, really played. Tell us what to do?"

          but so far it has not even been submitted to Congress.


          Well, let’s wait and this, what problems?
          1. -5
            3 November 2019 20: 05
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            See paragraph 1,2,6 from my list. Do you have any other explanation for this than the desire to reduce the return volley to the feasible for missile defense?


            New weapons are constantly being developed. If we consider this as "heating up the situation," then the term itself becomes meaningless.

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Well, half a million American citizens will die.


            You seem to be trying to troll. 1 bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 18ct, 80ty thousand people died immediately. Suppose 5 missiles break through, each of which carries 3 warheads in 300ct - this is 4.5mt, if you measure in Hiroshima - 250 Hiroshim, 20mln people. This is all under the assumption that everything went as you planned, and there was no retaliatory strike, and if something went wrong and he was - hell will be total. Remind me why the States need this risk?

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            What the hell is this?


            Fiery.

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            But then the President of the United States will be able to call Beijing and say something like "Hey, narrow-eyed, you haven't played superpower there, have you?"


            God level forecast. And what is happening in reality - see North Korea.
            1. +7
              3 November 2019 20: 51
              Quote: Good_Anonymous
              Remind me why the States need this risk?


              On other points, your position is closer to me than the author of the article, however, there are options specifically with this point. The "States" as a state, of course, does not need this, however, the hidden conceptual power in the States has long had forces, the motives of which are by no means rational. These forces, in fact, do not care about the States as a state. These forces are transboundary, they may well cherish the idea of ​​creating a command post somewhere in Africa - New Zealand and sit quietly there while the United States and Russia turn each other into plasma.

              Do not underestimate the level of madness of these characters. They are mystics and are guided by considerations close to religious. They must understand that they have no chance of fulfilling their plan and personal salvation, wherever they are.
              1. -8
                3 November 2019 20: 55
                Quote: Arkon
                latent conceptual power in the States has long been possessed by forces whose motives are by no means rational.


                Well, what is it hidden - you know.
                1. +4
                  3 November 2019 20: 58
                  laughing I’ll tell you more - not just me.
                  1. -8
                    3 November 2019 21: 00
                    Moreover, this power is no longer hidden.

                    Quote: Arkon
                    They must understand that they have no chance of fulfilling their plan and personal salvation, wherever they are.


                    Offering a cobalt bomb?
                    1. +4
                      3 November 2019 21: 07
                      I propose to make it clear to the likely adversary that we know all his "nychki" and that it will be against them that the blow will be struck. I think this is exactly what our president had in mind when he said that we would hit on points of decision-making.
                      1. -8
                        3 November 2019 21: 11
                        Quote: Arkon
                        I propose to make it clear to the likely adversary that we know all of his "nychki" and that they will be hit


                        Do you think there are more people in this "hidden power" than Russia has warheads? Because if there is more, then someone will definitely survive. The only way to punish everyone is to sterilize the planet. Best of all - several kilometers deep.
                      2. +2
                        3 November 2019 21: 18
                        Are you trying sarcastically to express the idea that the motivations of decision makers in the US cannot be anything but rational?

                        And what will we do with Hitler? wink
                      3. -4
                        3 November 2019 21: 25
                        Quote: Arkon
                        You are trying to express a thought with sarcasm


                        No, I'm just gnawing. I can’t take seriously theories about hidden power with irrational motives.

                        Quote: Arkon
                        And what will we do with Hitler? wink


                        The real historical Hitler grew up on well (and openly!) Prepared soil, went to power for 10 years in very specific historical conditions, and was clearly visible all this time. Nobody called him "hidden power". Who in the US is Hitler or his equivalent?

                        It was very difficult to contain the sarcasm about "we will." This is how Iron Sky comes to mind.
                      4. -1
                        3 November 2019 21: 28
                        Quote: Good_Anonymous
                        The real historical Hitler grew up on well (and openly!) Prepared soil, went to power for 10 years in very specific historical conditions, and was clearly visible all this time. Nobody called him "hidden power".


                        Meanwhile, his motives were rational only secondarily. His motives were mystical. If you don't like the word "hidden", then just forget - this is definitely not a format to delve into this topic. Just remember that the motives of the decision maker can be, so to speak, "different." smile
                      5. -3
                        3 November 2019 23: 30
                        ... His motives were mystical. If you don't like the word "hidden", then just forget - this is certainly not a format to delve into this topic. Just remember that the motives of the decision maker can be, so to speak, "different".


                        And then it's time to remember about the concrete owl (who will understand the topic).
                      6. +1
                        4 November 2019 11: 23
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        (who in the subject will understand).

                        So think that there is no world government .. unfortunately, where it stands during H there will not be anyone there but they would be like rats deep blue under the ground would be fucking when they have an assembly there .. and then most lullly remember the nuclear weapons schoolbags who in the subject will understand) drinks drinks
              2. -3
                4 November 2019 10: 07
                Quote: Arkon
                They are mystics and are guided by considerations close to religious.

                Are you talking about ZOG?
                Quote: Arkon
                Do not underestimate the level of madness.

                Not worth it. But I wouldn’t mean the Americans here.
            2. -3
              3 November 2019 22: 40
              New weapons are being developed constantly.


              New weapons suitable only for offensive nuclear war are not being developed constantly.

              God level forecast. And what is happening in reality - see North Korea.


              Are you one of those who believe that Eun scared Donald Trump? laughing
              1. -5
                3 November 2019 22: 47
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                New weapons suitable only for offensive nuclear war are not being developed constantly.


                Doesn't the stoppage heat up from the development of just offensive weapons? As for weapons "for an offensive nuclear war" - well, how do we know if they are constantly being developed or not?

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Are you someone who believes Eun scared Donald Trump? laughing


                I am one of those who know that Trump did not get anything he wanted. Or was it really different? Tell me how.
                1. -4
                  4 November 2019 02: 16
                  And from the development of just offensive weapons, the stop does not heat up?


                  No, they cannot make the language you speak dead in 30 minutes.

                  I am one of those who know that Trump did not get anything he wanted. Or was it really different?


                  In fact, the DPRK example is not relevant to this article.
                  1. -4
                    4 November 2019 10: 05
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    No, they cannot make the language you speak dead in 30 minutes.


                    I'm not worried about the language at all - you promised that "some part of the population of the Russian Federation" will survive.

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    In fact, the DPRK example is not relevant to this article.


                    The DPRK example shows that the Americans will not take the risk of massive losses.
                  2. -2
                    4 November 2019 10: 10
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    No, they cannot make the language you speak dead in 30 minutes

                    It seems that about the language that will be spoken only in hell, a conversation has already begun. And that time ended extremely moderately by our Stalinist standards, as far as I remember.
              2. +4
                4 November 2019 01: 52
                No, Eun didn't scare Trump. He scared South Korea, where the US military base is located. Eun scared Japan, where there are also several bases. And in the case of tens of thousands of American soldiers destroyed, will these countries continue to cooperate with the United States? Although Trump, after the attack on North Korea, will not say hello to his country.
              3. -1
                4 November 2019 10: 50
                Scared, not scared, only Trump knows. And the fact that the Americans are at an impasse and do not know what to do with nuclear Eun is a fact. And if they are baffled by several nuclerenbatons not able to reach the United States, then it is premature to reflect on the destruction of Russia.
                Although you are right in one thing, this is not the time to roam on our laurels.
                1. 0
                  4 November 2019 17: 31
                  The benefits of strikes in the DPRK and the Russian Federation are different. A war with the DPRK is not worth the risk.
                  1. 0
                    4 November 2019 20: 33
                    But the war with Russia is. If the US nuclear forces and its missile defense have reached such power as the author writes, then bombing North Korea is a mere trifle. So not even one bomb will fall on US allies. Moreover, to do this under the nose of China with its ally. This will show China for a long time who is the boss in the house.
                    IMHO, everything is simpler and no need to think out. The US is not sure that not a single atomic bomb will fall on its allies. And this mini-armagedon with North Korea didn’t give up to them, and if it fails, all the cones will fall on them.
                    And even more so, they won’t start an atomic war with Russia for nothing.
                    Well, what are the advantages of a defensive strike against Russia? We have not been competitors in everything for a long time, we only spoil them little by little.
                    There China challenges them in all areas, but they have not yet bombed it, but are fighting in the economy. Although China will be easier to bomb, and even worse for world domination.

                    I’ll even tell you more if we had no atomic weapons at all. In modern realities, nobody would bomb us anyway. We ourselves are degrading quite well. For us, Americans have weapons worse than atomic ones. Our elite who already goes where they need for American carrots.
                    1. +2
                      4 November 2019 20: 49
                      If we did not have nuclear weapons, then we would not be ourselves. We are dangerous for the United States and Europe by our very existence in this place, and not by petty retaliatory mucks like Venezuela and Syria. Because Russia has the potential to become the first world power and destroy the United States. No other power is capable of this. It is comparable to an independent karate man in a prison cell who ignores godfather and successfully repels all attempts to shorten or kill him.
                      In addition, our people themselves with their so-called too numerous, self-sufficient and ambitious. It is subject to sharp reduction following the example of the Indians. This is the best analogy. They did not begin to destroy their blacks, but practically destroyed the Indians. And they bombed everyone who tried to resist them: Koreans, Vietnamese, Serbs, Libyans, Iraqis, Syrians, etc.
                      Why do you think that we are an exception?
                      1. 0
                        4 November 2019 21: 04
                        Somewhere I already heard all this. Soloviev’s. But there’s no bullying from a neighbor that he’ll stop drinking now and show everyone. And in general, everyone is afraid of him and everyone respects him. And without it, the sun does not rise in the sky.
                        But he doesn’t know that all this is only in his sick imagination. And in the eyes of others, he is a drunk who is no longer needed by anyone. Of course, he is dangerous when drunk (who knows what is on his mind), but no one will kill him for it. Firstly, there may not be enough strength. And secondly, it hurts painfully, he will suck and die.
                      2. -1
                        4 November 2019 21: 28
                        If the alcohol theme is closer to you, then this virtual drunk now drinks no more than others. After the dashing bout of the 90s, when he drank half of the apartment, he began to restore order in it, not letting strangers into it and putting his slippers everywhere and opening his stalls around. City bandits are afraid to contact him, because he energetically marked a couple who wanted to squeeze out the little room and bought a gun of a serious caliber. He also went hunting and showed everyone that he knows how to shoot better than others. Rumor has it that he has an anti-tank grenade in stock
                        Well, it’s natural that the gangsters have no choice but to grind their teeth and palm off on him fake vodka, which he now identifies from afar ...
              4. 0
                4 November 2019 17: 30
                Are you one of those who believe that he felt sorry for him?
            3. -3
              4 November 2019 03: 21
              if measured in Hiroshima

              in Hiroshima it is wrong to measure, there is no such direct dependence.
              and the radius of the destruction zone from the 600 kt bomb will not be twice as large as from 300 kt.
              1. -5
                4 November 2019 10: 11
                Quote: Avior
                it is wrong to measure in Hiroshima


                I understand, but you need to measure something.

                Quote: Avior
                the radius of the destruction zone from a bomb of 600 kt will not be twice as large as from 300 kt.


                The 18kt and 300ct bombs were compared, and not the radius of destruction, but losses. I extrapolated linearly, because in a modern city the population density is much higher, therefore the same radius of destruction will cause much more victims. Even if I made a mistake many times up, it’s still millions of victims. And this is only at once - then they will die from radiation sickness, hunger, lack of medical care.
                1. -1
                  4 November 2019 10: 19
                  there was somehow a good detailed article analyzing the possible destruction and consequences in the event of a nuclear war.
                  the end of the world does not threaten.
                  1. -4
                    4 November 2019 20: 53
                    Quote: Avior
                    there was somehow a good detailed article analyzing the possible destruction and consequences in the event of a nuclear war.


                    The problem with articles about the consequences of a nuclear war is that for every article that says "there will be consequences of X" there is another article that says "no, there will be consequences of Y". But nobody seems to argue with millions of victims.

                    Quote: Avior
                    the end of the world does not threaten.


                    And in order not to get involved in a nuclear war, is it necessarily the end of the world?
                    1. +1
                      5 November 2019 02: 43
                      I did not write what is necessary.
                      just wrote about the method of calculating victims.
                      I'm generally sure that the Americans will avoid nuclear war by all means, unless they really squeeze it.
                      And then only after they try a full-fledged economic war, which will involve the entire planet.
                  2. +1
                    5 November 2019 01: 37
                    Quote: Avior
                    there was somehow a good detailed article analyzing the possible destruction and consequences in the event of a nuclear war.
                    the end of the world does not threaten.

                    The article is complete nonsense, with a claim to work.
                    When there is discussion about TMV, practically no such thinker recalls the third side of the PLANET conflict. Or is it that everyone universally believes that with a massive exchange of nuclear charges, the planet will tolerate all this aside? If anyone thinks so, let him accelerate and fuck with all his swoop on the door jamb with his head.
          2. +6
            3 November 2019 23: 11
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Well, what uniform hell? Well, half a million American citizens will die. What the hell is this?

            Dear, I’ll start by asking you a question-How do you understand the term-ANSWER missile strike?
            The Americans will need quite a few carriers that will have to come up to the distance of launching missiles (with a small nuclear warhead or with a large one), which of course, in your opinion, we stupidly will not notice.
            Now with regards to the fact that mattresses create missile defense.
            The US missile defense is essentially not at all! The main and key carriers of missile defense in the United States are ships. And they will be the ones who will have to deliver a disarming missile strike on us, thereby approaching our shores. And approaching our shores, they will completely expose their shore.
            And in this regard, I wonder how these mattresses will intercept everything that flies in their direction from our side?
            Now about the interception of ICBMs. Intercepting one warhead requires 5 to 50 missile defense (and interception is not guaranteed). In each land-based ICBM, we have from 6 to 10 warheads, and this I do not consider false BG.
            We look at how many land-based missiles the United States has ... something in the 150 region. And I wonder how 150 anti-missiles will intercept everything that flies to them? Especially considering that their missiles are in one particular place and by the way, they are not so new.
            And this is not about half a million US citizens, but the complete destruction of the United States as a state, and the almost total destruction of a greater number of citizens of the country, as a result of the densely populated megalopolises.
            And if you remember that the very same Sarmat will soon be put on duty, which is capable of flying through the South Pole, then what are you going to intercept when there is nothing at all in that direction?
            1. -5
              4 November 2019 02: 19
              Dear, I’ll start by asking you a question-How do you understand the term-ANSWER missile strike?


              If the enemy managed to deal with the first strike and made a reciprocal-counter strike, then the questions are removed then, in general, everything.

              But this is not a fact even now, but in the light of what the Americans are doing with their nuclear arsenal and how our population is not able to see and understand obvious things (and the structures responsible for making decisions in politics consist of representatives of the people, whatever one may say) , it will be even more not a fact in the future - the farther, the stronger.
              1. +5
                4 November 2019 15: 22
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                If the enemy managed to deal with the first strike and made a reciprocal-counter strike, then the questions are removed then, in general, everything.

                That is, about the early warning radar, satellites, finally reconnaissance, you, the author of this masterpiece, have not heard at all?
                Read our defense doctrine, and no longer write such a heresy.
                1. 0
                  5 November 2019 15: 34
                  This is not a panacea, the SPRN is cut down by various methods, if necessary, as is the political leadership. You always need to understand that the enemy can replay you and the reciprocal gift will not take place, only the return one will take place.
                  1. +1
                    5 November 2019 21: 52
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    This is not a panacea, SPRN can be cut down by different methods if necessary,

                    What is one way? I was sooooooo interested, given the fact that this system is rolled and does not have access to the Internet.
          3. +2
            4 November 2019 10: 33

            But then the President of the United States will be able to call Beijing and say something like "Hey, narrow-eyed, you haven't played superpower there, have you?" And the chairman of the Communist Party of China answered him: "Yes, sir, really played. Tell us what to do?"

            With logic, the author is not very. For the second time I met him about the destruction of Russia in order to put China in its place.
            The author will probably attack the CCM in boxing with him to put some nerd in his place. And if he himself does not get the horns, he will say to the bat "Well, I understand who I contacted."
            However, even for a simple gopnik with better logic, he will simply give a nerd in the horns.
            So why destroy the stronger Russian strategic nuclear forces to impress China? Isn’t it easier to immediately attack the weaker strategic nuclear forces of China?
            1. +1
              5 November 2019 15: 38
              The Americans need China as an economic partner, but not as a competitor, labor force, etc. Russia is not needed for anything. In addition, there are two more factors - Russia has already challenged the United States precisely as an alternative center of power in the world, while China is mentally incapable of this, and secondly, a significant part of the American elites are obsessed with irrational hatred of Russia.

              I once made an article on the motivation of American elites, with a bunch of references to their own sociologists and with quotes from the speeches of public figures about us.
              They did not let her through, like, would be regarded as extremism. Although there were only quotes, examples, etc., without interpretation.
        2. +4
          4 November 2019 01: 47
          Although if we take into account two cases: "invisibility of Patriot systems and all others, made by the United States, when launching ballistic missiles by North Korea" (systems installed in Japan and South Korea did not react or did not see North Korean missiles)?
          And the second case is with the Saudi oil refineries, where neither Patriot, nor any others reacted at all.
          But how can we talk about "only a few surviving missiles"? And how will the United States intercept them?
          Patriot system? But they don’t even see outdated ones, but what about Russian hypersonic ones?
          Author, get better prepared.
          1. -2
            4 November 2019 10: 19
            Quote: Vik Ganz
            systems installed in Japan and South Korea did not respond or did not see North Korean missiles)

            And with what fright should an army-level air defense system see the infantry ballistic missile system across the sea?
            Quote: Vik Ganz
            the second case with Saudi oil refineries, where neither Patriot nor any others reacted at all.

            Who told you that Patriot stood at this factory? Where is Peoriot and where are the KR, who, it seems, were there (although the topic is extremely muddy, there is a possibility that outhouse the factory was blown up by ibn-Saudi themselves, where they have their own Scheherazade).
        3. +2
          4 November 2019 03: 52
          Good_Anonymous, do not get fooled by this nonsense. They did not reduce the detonation power, but slightly increased the accuracy in the course of the next modernization, and nothing in the bud does not cut the "value of SLBMs in the containment system." What is a "counter-value strike" - perhaps you need to ask the elves. I didn’t find any information about the B-63 bomb, I suspect it’s not there at all. There is the B-61, which, of course, is not a first strike weapon. Its accuracy really increases in the course of the next modernization, but the power does not decrease, but is made adjustable (probably downward) to reduce collateral damage and radioactive tail. Why should this speak of preparing the first strike? What would the author say if the power was increased? "Chef, is it all gone"? That is, it rises - of course it is bad, it is regulated downwards - but also bad. Remains as it is - bad or not? Probably too bad, because the B-83 remains as it is, and it also causes inexplicable concern in the author. smile
        4. -1
          4 November 2019 17: 27
          Quote: Good_Anonymous

          How everything started. Before creating a missile defense system that is guaranteed to "knock down a few surviving missiles," you must at least be sure that only "a few missiles" will survive. Because if only a few dozen survive, then several missiles that have broken through (we consider the effectiveness of the missile defense system to be 90%) will create hell. The question of why the States should take such a risk, I do not even ask.

          But do not ask in vain. In fact, the breakthrough of several warheads and the death of several million Americans are even beneficial for people who launched a global nuclear war. Firstly, it will justify the first disarming strike. After all, the Americans struck at military targets, and these beast-Russians at innocent civilians. Those. the Americans were completely right in trying to deprive these non-Russians of terrible nuclear weapons. And if the United States had not dealt the first blow, the Russians would have killed hundreds of millions. Those. in fact, the brave American military saved hundreds of millions.
          Secondly, this will be the indisputable basis for the destruction of any Russian state and the seizure of its lands. After all, it is necessary to deprive the Russians of even the slightest opportunity to threaten peace.

          And the most important thing. In light of the above, a retaliatory nuclear strike, which due to weakness does not lead to the collapse of American society and the state, becomes meaningless. And any adequate leader of Russia will refuse him, because it will be a futile suicide.
          1. +1
            4 November 2019 18: 32
            In this regard, it is not worth steaming at all: the Americans will justify everything that is beneficial to them.
          2. +1
            6 November 2019 00: 07
            Quote: SVD68
            this will justify the first disarming strike. After all, the Americans struck at military targets, and these beast-Russians at innocent civilians.


            And, of course, no one will ask America, "We lived peacefully for N decades, why did you provoke the murder of several million of us?" Because stupid Americans are so stupid.

            But you gave (as you could) an answer to the question "how will they be justified." You didn’t answer the question “why do the Americans need it?
      2. 0
        3 November 2019 21: 36
        The last "big war" was almost 75 years ago. But local ones continue without interruption. The strategy is also changing, turning from "nuclear deterrence" to (as the Ukrainian citizens in Donbas used to say) to the strategy of "toad jumping" - the metropolises remain and are fighting for the "great interests" of local aborigines. There is no fundamental confrontation as it was between the USSR and the USA. Accordingly, nuclear weapons have ceased to be a deterrent in the sense that was indicated during the Cold War. The nuclear powers are very strongly interconnected and economically, therefore, a global war is now not beneficial to anyone. All these triads are already yesterday, weapons are changing in a revolutionary way, being more targeted and less vulnerable than traditional means of warfare. Hence the minimization of nuclear weapons, etc.
        1. 0
          3 November 2019 22: 42
          Now realities

          1. Modernization of the warhead SLBM "Trident" in weapons of high-precision strike of limited force
          2. Lifting the ban on the creation of ultra-small nuclear charges
          3. Modernization of nuclear bombs with increasing accuracy and reducing power.
          4. Ongoing missile defense work
          5. Exit from the INF Treaty
          6. Future withdrawal from START-3
          7. Future exit from "Open Skies".

          Doesn’t it bother you?
          1. +3
            4 November 2019 03: 17
            But why did you decide that all of these points (some are still in question) are aimed at the first US disarming strike against Russia?
            1. Ultra-small power of the new W76-2 warheads (not all old W76 are replaced!).
            At present, for more or less guaranteed destruction / damage of an ICBM mine, type R-36M2, taking into account the declared CWO and the required excess pressure, one "heavy" W88 warhead is required - for 500 kilotons or a pair of "light" W76 - 100 kilotons each. To defeat the first strike of all our mines, about 150 units, they need roughly 200-300 warheads.
            Obviously, a weak 5-kiloton warhead should have, perhaps, an order of magnitude greater accuracy for destroying the same mine alone / together, which is doubtful with the same Trident-2 carrier.
            If we consider the picture that you gave, it seems, in another article of yours, how about three out of a dozen such "small" warheads explode over a mine (in itself it is strange that the explosions are not ground-based), then while maintaining the START-3 treaty, but while it is in force (and the warheads are already being replaced), the Americans will then have to use their entire deployed arsenal (less than 1500 warheads) only for our silo ICBMs. And that is not enough, you will have to call the British and the French.
            To defeat mobile PGRK, the location of which is difficult to pinpoint even at the moment of launching their missile, and even more so after 20-30 minutes of its flight - PGRK even taking into account the time of detection, warning and reaction can travel several kilometers - it is better to have a warhead with a radius defeats not in hundreds of meters, but in kilometers.
            About the destruction of our SSBNs in the database - the same story.

            Although their American reasoning for the introduction of W76-2: "Preventing a potential enemy (Russia) from using tactical weapons in the hope that the United States will not use its strategic nuclear weapons in response to a limited nuclear attack" also does not seem very logical.

            In principle, in the order of delirium, they can also use ultra-small warheads in critical cases as anti-terrorism (in terms of the USA) and anti-missile weapons, missile defense.
            If we assume that the deployment of GDI, on the territory of the United States, and Aegis Ashor, in Poland and Romania, does not have a high enough probability to protect NATO members from possible single nuclear missile strikes, for example, from Iran, North Korea or other Asian "young" nuclear states. Then the preventive launch of Trident with a mini-BG from one of Ohio nearby, about 2000 kilometers away, in preparation for, say, launching a BR or at the residence of the country's leadership will take 10 minutes instead of several hours, as in conventional air strikes.
            In the case of a military target in the city, only the target and service personnel will be destroyed, in urban areas - several blocks and several thousand people. Who knows, perhaps for critical cases they will find this acceptable.

            The same under paragraphs 2. and 3.
            The same according to claim 4.
            The way out of the INF Treaty and, perhaps, strategic offensive arms is about China.
            1. -3
              4 November 2019 10: 22
              But why did you decide that all of these points (some are still in question) are aimed at the first US disarming strike against Russia?
              1. Ultra-small power of the new W76-2 warheads (not all old W76 are replaced!).
              At present, for more or less guaranteed destruction / damage of an ICBM mine, type R-36M2, taking into account the declared CWO and the required excess pressure, one "heavy" W88 warhead is required - for 500 kilotons or a pair of "light" W76 - 100 kilotons each. To defeat the first strike of all our mines, about 150 units, they need roughly 200-300 warheads.

              in the new nuclear doctrine, the reasons for the creation of this ammunition are unambiguously indicated for limited targeted retaliatory strikes against Russia. There will be few of them.
              for what you wrote, it makes no sense to reduce power artificially.
              1. +1
                4 November 2019 11: 57
                And there is. Although the doctrine, in principle, may change.
                It just seems to me that the author in some of his articles uses information about the mini-warhead program as one of the main arguments on which his conviction about the imminent US nuclear strike is based. And his further conclusions are based on a foundation that is not quite right (from my Chaynikov's point of view).
                In any case, despite the controversy of some of the postulates and conclusions of Alexander Timokhin and such ... slight nuclear aggressiveness, many thanks to him for the articles in which not a reprint of Western sources, not "hurray" or "until", but figures, facts and logical conclusions with which one can agree or argue.
            2. 0
              5 November 2019 13: 08
              At present, for more or less guaranteed destruction / damage of the ICBM mine, type P-36М2, taking into account the declared KVO


              So new fuses reduce the effect of airborne explosives due to the simultaneous combined air-ground detonation, and at times.
          2. +1
            4 November 2019 07: 44
            The question was raised about strategic deterrence, and all your points are topics of an operational-tactical plan. Precision weapons cannot be used to gain a strategic victory in a war against both the Russian Federation and the PRC. Destroy something that as a result of massive strikes will not have access - it makes no sense. If in the confrontation between the USSR and the USA, there was a struggle for territory, today it is for oil, gas, etc. The United States is waging wars to own resources, not to destroy these resources. Pay attention to the fact that the trend in the development of armaments today shows a departure from the creation of new types of weapons of mass destruction, to the creation of weapons of total destruction, i.e. the goal is the combat use of the destruction and destruction of military facilities with the least damage to infrastructure facilities. The USA today is redirecting its nuclear potential for use in local conflicts, and this is not the first time. Remember the creation of a neutron bomb in the United States - when radiation destroys all living things, and infrastructure facilities remain intact. It is the tasks that are being solved today with the help of local wars that dictate the requirements for weapons. Everyone today understands that the nuclear weapons that exist today are enough to destroy life on the planet, therefore there is no point in developing and dramatically improving the strategic nuclear forces, there is no sense in either military, political or economic.
            1. -2
              4 November 2019 11: 05
              Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
              If the confrontation between the USSR and the USA was a struggle for territory

              What? Did a lot of the USA grab territories then?
              Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
              today for oil, gas, etc.

              People who believe that the world's largest hydrocarbon producer, a net exporter sitting at home in the Persian Gulf, will arrange an atomic war for second-rate urals, will never end on Russian television
              1. -1
                4 November 2019 12: 20
                For tesser (-_-)
                1 About the territory - do not understand everything in the literal sense. The struggle for territory is conducted (in contrast to the wars of the 1st half of the 20th century) not for joining them as direct colonies, but for the dominant influence of the ideology of the USA or the USSR on this territory. The last ideological war between the USSR and the USA and K was in Afghanistan in 1979-89. After the collapse of the USSR, ideological (unlike religious) wars became less likely. Now the struggle is not for the entire territory of the country, but only for the one that can bring profit - the example of the United States and the oil fields of Syria.
                2. But the fact that a global nuclear war is unprofitable for the United States, I agree with you ... only the point is not in the grades of oil))) The fact is that even from the sale of "second-class Urals" American multinational corporations make a profit. So why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, even if these eggs are the size of quail, but golden.
                1. -1
                  4 November 2019 13: 22
                  Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
                  dominant influence on the territory of the ideology of the United States or the USSR.

                  As if you are aware of the ideology of those years. Does your surname Cardenas say anything?
                  Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
                  example of the USA and oil fields of Syria.

                  Syria's oil fields account for half a percent of American production. Donnie's task is not to get Syrian oil, but to squeeze out of her all sorts of rogues, to whom this at most a billion dollars a year will solve something, at least in the logic of a woman with a cart. What money do you think Assad and his structures have been living with all these years?
                  Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
                  even from the sale of "second-rate Urals" American multinational corporations make a profit.

                  Do you even understand what small amounts are involved? Are you aware that daily export of oil from the Russian Federation comes from the strength of $ 200 million per day? Have you seen the famous American public debt (and its growth rate under Donnie)?
                  1. -4
                    4 November 2019 20: 18
                    The war is not nuclear now, the information warrior! Remember the times of the early 90s. Yes, they themselves abandoned everything and sold out for snickers, without shots the mattresses bent the Union, for a ringing coin and a sweet life! Explain to the youth now that they do not need an iPhone, but virgin land!
                    1. -2
                      4 November 2019 20: 21
                      Quote: Alien From
                      Explain to the youth now that they do not need an iPhone, but virgin land!

                      I do not advise. Young people are haggard now, but it can still beat.
                      1. -5
                        4 November 2019 20: 33
                        Accepted))) but I think many people will understand the meaning of the post!
            2. +2
              4 November 2019 11: 15
              The neutron bomb was made against tanks (the usual nuclear bomb against them is ineffective, and this causes induced radiation in the armor, which is why the tank cannot be operated for at least a week - the crew will die within XNUMX hours).
              1. +2
                4 November 2019 12: 29
                For bk0010
                Who told you such nonsense - a neutron bomb against tanks? Against the breakthrough of Soviet tanks on the border of the Federal Republic of Germany with the German Democratic Republic on tank hazardous directions, NATO had a whole line of high-explosive bombs, which after the blast created a band with high radiation. The neutron bomb (read in the sources) was created as a bomb that killed people, but at the same time significantly reduced the destruction of factories, roads, etc. The neutron bomb is an emission of radiation contamination with the rapid decay of radioactive particles.
                1. -1
                  4 November 2019 12: 48
                  Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
                  Who told you such nonsense - a neutron bomb against tanks?
                  Ask a question - this is interesting.
                  Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
                  which after the explosion created a band with high radiation
                  Yes, that’s why all our infantry were seated in armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles with anti-nuclear defense, and long before the laying of these land mines (to break through the epicenter). In tanks, a similar system appeared on the T-55.
                  Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
                  The neutron bomb (read in the sources) was created as a bomb that killed people, but at the same time significantly reduced the destruction of factories, roads, etc.
                  People can be killed in much cheaper ways, the safety of our factories is not a plus for the enemy (or did you think that the United States would transport our machine park across the ocean?)
                  Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
                  A neutron bomb is an emission of radiation contamination with the rapid decay of radioactive particles.
                  A neutron bomb is a thermonuclear layer without an absorbing uranium layer, therefore the neutron flux that initiated the fission reaction in the uranium layer comes out and creates induced radiation. Including in tank armor. After which she herself begins to radiate with high intensity for several days, this can not be used for about a week. In the United States, depleted uranium is used to combat this effect (not only for this, the main task is to counteract BOPs, but also for this), we have an anti-neutron lining.
          3. 0
            4 November 2019 17: 16
            And what, was there once a ban on small power charges? And what is the benefit, like we launched a rocket with smm, but thought up a big one and you're wrong? Do not write nonsense!
            1. 0
              5 November 2019 15: 41
              Was from 1993 to 2004. Congress showed peacefulness. For example, this did not allow the production of portable nuclear charges like B-54 for example. Now you can again.
    2. 0
      4 November 2019 17: 29
      It is the same.
  10. +7
    3 November 2019 18: 40
    Another nonsense. In the event that there is not a local / regional conventional conflict and not a regional conflict using nuclear weapons, but a global one for total annihilation, then such nuances do not play any role. In this case, they will completely destroy the states as such - to erase not only military facilities from the face of the earth, but also to erase cities with civilians - all these New Yorks, Washington and Los Angeles. Hundreds of millions of people will die. The rest no longer plays any role
    1. -3
      3 November 2019 19: 10
      Write nonsense. Even if the first counter-value blow was "slept through", some part of the population of the Russian Federation and more than half of the US population survive, and if the blow was counter-force and limited in "exit", then there is no question of what you write.
      1. -6
        3 November 2019 20: 23
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        part of the Russian population and more than half of the US population survives


        This is called "hundreds of millions of people will die."
      2. +7
        3 November 2019 21: 31
        So, here the problem is not how many people will survive - in fact, many will survive.
        The point here is the complete destruction of the state as a mechanism - after a nuclear strike there will be no water, no food supplies, electricity, communications, police and firefighters. The country will be cast off in the 19 century. And the army will be deprived of global intelligence and communications to track what's on the airfield in Texas. The army will launch the English Channel using TNW. And then there will be a dead end - neither we nor Amers will have anything to do - the army will be able to use only part (part will be destroyed) of stocks for the war period without the possibility of replenishment. For a big war, the army needs to be supplied, but there will be no more supplies for the mechanism that would make weapons, the state in the state of the 19 century is not able to supply the modern army.
        1. -3
          4 November 2019 11: 09
          Quote: 30hgsa
          after a nuclear strike there will be no water, food, electricity, communications, police and firefighters

          Who told you such nonsense? Where are they all going to go?
          Quote: 30hgsa
          a state in the state of the 19th century is not able to supply a modern army.

          This is your reality of the vaunted Brezhnev time. Now there will not be enough full-fledged fallout of the NBC.
      3. +6
        4 November 2019 01: 59
        You don't read much. Again, the Western "nuclear games". After the mutual blows of the Russian population, 20% will remain (although this may be a big lie too).
        But there is NOTHING left of North America. Not a single resident. And such a trifle as Canada is not even taken into account. Although she will disappear.
        1. -1
          4 November 2019 06: 00
          Quote: Vik Ganz
          You don't read much. Again, the Western "nuclear games". After the mutual blows of the Russian population, 20% will remain (although this may be a big lie too).
          But there is NOTHING left of North America. Not a single resident. And such a trifle as Canada is not even taken into account. Although she will disappear.

          Uh ... I don’t understand why this whole North American continent will disappear? Can you argue? Or are you from the St. Yellowstone sect?
        2. -3
          4 November 2019 11: 14
          Quote: Vik Ganz
          20% of the population will remain (although maybe this is a big territory).

          Quote: Dude
          Or are you from the St. Yellowstone sect?

          Or Poseidon.

          In real life, the Russian Federation has a very large concentration of the population, much more than in the United States. Here you need to be more careful not just with the States, but with Pakistan, Israel, etc. These will not shoot at missile silos, they will not hit. Just go to the cities, if that.
          1. +1
            5 November 2019 15: 42
            Yes, this is a very big problem. Almost the entire population suffers a blow to the cities. But they will not have enough missiles to strike at military facilities and in cities.

            Not enough yet.
  11. +3
    3 November 2019 18: 45
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Well, yes, where do the peasants Sivolapim go to us - and on airplanes, right?

    Well, so far it turns out and I'm not thrilled with this.
    1. +2
      3 November 2019 19: 11
      It’s just not so, ours in Korea showed perfectly what’s what, then the Vietnamese pilots once again showed what’s what.

      Amerov can be beaten, but on condition that the troops are trained and equipped properly.
      1. Alf
        0
        3 November 2019 21: 36
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Amerov can be beaten, but on condition that the troops are trained and equipped properly.

        Most importantly, top management must have eggs of steel.
  12. +9
    3 November 2019 18: 46
    Yeah, to drive our strategists to low altitudes from the air defense air defense systems (which the transatlantic adversary practically does not have) is serious.
    Although, with the author it is quite possible and necessary to agree. If you have a club in your hand, you just need to be able to use it. And to the maximum!
    Another thing is that I personally do not imagine a "limited nuclear conflict" with the participation of the Russian Federation and the USA or NATO. Here, if you beat, then immediately to death. They won’t give us a second chance.
    1. -5
      3 November 2019 19: 12
      They quite have different types of radars and AWACS aircraft, there are interceptors, some of which do not see targets very well against the background of the underlying surface.
      1. +6
        3 November 2019 19: 36
        So what's the point in the low-altitude flight profile of strategists?
        Air defense radars on the American continent will likewise be blind from many nuclear outbreaks. Yes, and AFAR fighters are also not very protected from EMP. Especially massive.
        I already wrote - in the case of a nuclear babakh, AK will become the most necessary and most demanded weapon, moreover, in the caliber 7,62.
        1. +3
          3 November 2019 21: 13
          In general, the author needs to write texts for laughter.
          So I imagined - they worked out strategic nuclear forces for each other. All the main communications and control facilities, headquarters, cities, military facilities are in ruins. Communication in the world is absent as such - it disappeared even after the detonation of charges in the exosphere at the initial stage of the showdown. And then someone somehow sees that they are taking something out of some bombed-out (!) Airfield ... and (probably with pigeons?) He gives information to the headquarters and he somehow (probably again with a pigeon) contacts a bomber and redirects the bomber to this airfield ...
          1. -3
            3 November 2019 23: 26
            Communication in the world is absent as such - it disappeared even after the detonation of charges in the exosphere at the initial stage of the showdown.


            Explosions in the exosphere are an "option" that is implemented under strictly defined circumstances, and when they do not occur, it is not implemented.

            I do not want to raise this topic in detail.

            The probability of what you write about is not 100%.
        2. -6
          3 November 2019 22: 46
          So what's the point in the low-altitude flight profile of strategists?
          Air defense radars on the American continent will likewise be blind from many nuclear outbreaks.


          There are mobile toys such as E-3. You can, in the end, organize something like the old VNOS, and quite quickly. You can raise more interceptors into the air if you have fuel. Somewhere radars will work quite well, etc.

          As an option - it is necessary. Not for all aircraft, but for a part - for sure.

          I once studied what about the Tu-95 and their crews, the American pilots of the B-52 themselves said. The general meaning is only the Kyrgyz Republic, otherwise the Russians will not be able to fight, due to gaps in training.
          Even in the internet it was somewhere in English.
          1. +3
            4 November 2019 02: 11
            Yes, they always say something about Russians ...
            Somewhere the radars will work - I assume that in Antarctica and then not far.
            Ionized radiation and clouds of radioactive dust after a dozen explosions on the continent (any) will close this continent from any radio intelligence and radio communications for weeks if not months.
            And here are hundreds, if not thousands of nuclear BG ...
            No, you have to go grease the machine, grind axes with bill hooks. It will not be worse.
            1. 0
              4 November 2019 06: 14
              Ionized radiation and clouds of radioactive dust after a dozen explosions on the continent (any) will close this continent from any radio intelligence and radio communications for weeks if not months.
              Well, suppose a dozen explosions of nuclear warheads, a whole continent, of course, will not be closed for months. Hundreds and thousands are already another calico, but the task is set by the Americans - to allow only a few launches on our part.
              No, you have to go grease the machine, grind axes with bill hooks. It will not be worse
              But this is a good idea! good wink
          2. +5
            4 November 2019 08: 10
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            I once studied what about the Tu-95 and their crews, the American pilots of the B-52 themselves said. The general meaning is only the Kyrgyz Republic, otherwise the Russians will not be able to fight, due to gaps in training.

            Have you held the position of flight castle? Or do you know perfectly KBP YES?
          3. +1
            4 November 2019 17: 20
            Have you seen the Tu-95 with bombs? Left behind from life ...
      2. +1
        4 November 2019 02: 10
        If the USA has different radars and AWACS, interceptors, why didn’t they use all their rubbish in North Korea when launching ballistic missiles and attacking the Saudi refineries? Were you greedy?
        And as a result, they lost all authority among the allies.
        1. -2
          4 November 2019 11: 20
          Quote: Vik Ganz
          all your rubbish in North Korea during the launch of ballistic missiles and during the attack on the Saudi refineries?

          What for? For what?
          Quote: Vik Ganz
          lost all authority with the allies.

          What kind of allies? What kind of authority?
    2. +2
      4 November 2019 02: 03
      But the Americans "accustom us" to low-power nuclear charges. They think that we will lead on their adventure.
      1. +1
        4 November 2019 06: 26
        Quote: Vik Ganz
        But the Americans "accustom us" to low-power nuclear charges. They think that we will lead on their adventure.

        I think that nobody, of course, is engaged in any kind of training. If the Americans reduce the power of the charge, and increase its accuracy, then it is logical to assume that they developed doctrine, which requires the use of just such ammunition. Apparently, they are not going to wage war on mutual annihilation (which is logical). But the author’s thought that part of its US nuclear arsenal is being transferred from a deterrent weapon to a high-precision attack weapon, I think, can be accepted. Moreover, the nuclear desert, at the place of use, they do not need (the power of the charges is reduced / made adjustable). Here where they plan to use it - an interesting question. hi
  13. +1
    3 November 2019 18: 48
    Shaw is such - graphomania, no? laughing
    1. -7
      3 November 2019 19: 23
      Grafomania is to saddle in quiet sadness, due to age-related changes in the nervous system laughing
  14. +4
    3 November 2019 18: 49
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    It is very difficult to make a bomber. And very, very expensive.

    If you use a bomber, as you described, "in the American way," then yes, it is difficult, but if as a carrier of cruise missiles, it is no more difficult than a transport aircraft.
    1. -8
      3 November 2019 19: 13
      Why is he like that?
      1. +4
        3 November 2019 20: 38
        As a mobile platform for ALCM
        1. -3
          3 November 2019 22: 48
          They can be dropped from the transporter through the ramp.

          Such a specialized aircraft can afford only very rich countries.
  15. +2
    3 November 2019 18: 53
    If a conditional Hitler-Russophobe comes to power in the USA, all these scenarios can take place.
    1. +4
      3 November 2019 19: 14
      I’ll honestly tell you - do not care who comes to power in the United States, they have been preparing such a scenario for a long time and intensively and have already advanced far. See my comments above.
      1. +2
        4 November 2019 02: 22
        From the 45th to the present day, our sworn friends already had a dozen or three unrealized plans for nuclear wars. And it will fly into our territory and the bombing by free-falling YaB from them is the most unrealizable for sure.
        It could be implemented before 53. But not now.
        As if some did not relate to GDP, but his remark that we do not need a world in which Russia is not present has been activated by many “brake pads”.
        I personally believe him. And I support.
        1. -1
          4 November 2019 06: 35
          And it will fly into our territory and the bombing by free-falling YaB from them is the most unrealizable for sure.
          Could be implemented up to 53.
          In the conditions of (partial) suppression and disorganization of air defense - a fully realizable scenario. The length of our borders is enormous. And, of course, not just a "spherical" air raid "in a vacuum" (TM), but as part of a complex, using other means of attack.
          1. 0
            4 November 2019 10: 19
            I will not tire of repeating -
            disorganization
            Unanswered is nonsense!
            It will take a maximum of a few minutes to determine the enemy’s intentions, and the very first launches of "disruptive" air defense ammunition will cause the red button to be pressed.
            This is precisely what stops “amateurs” in redrawing the world.
            And it’s precisely our air defense that is our everything; it was created as an indicator of enemy intentions and as the main line of defense before the strategic hammer hit the enemy’s head.
            Without Russia-a world in ruin!
            And it works
            1. 0
              4 November 2019 11: 52
              Read carefully:
              And, of course, not just a "spherical" air raid "in a vacuum" (TM), but as part of a complex, using other means of attack.
              The enemy also doesn’t slurp soup. And judging by the bustle (INF Treaty, strategic offensive arms, Open Skies, etc.), getting ready. So, there is a plan on which he relies. And complacency, so to speak, is short-sighted. As well as relying only on air defense, or on the fact that all these murky gestures are not against us, but against China, Iran, or the Martians, too.
    2. 0
      4 November 2019 11: 14
      Hitler was guided by the Blitzkrieg doctrine, which proved to be quite good before the war with the USSR. If he brought to his signature a strategy where, as a result of an attack on the USSR, a large part of the population and infrastructure will die. It is unlikely that he would get involved in this, despite Russophobia. But in the United States, collegial rule in general, and for conditional president Russophobe to start a war. The establishment must be convinced of this and security guarantees must be given to it.
    3. -2
      4 November 2019 11: 22
      Quote: shoroh
      conditional Hitler will come to power in the USA

      He hanged himself long before that. America cannot be saved; racial purity cannot be brought back.
  16. -8
    3 November 2019 19: 05
    One of the best articles on VO. Everything is simple, clear and with excellent arguments. Bravo author.
    1. -5
      3 November 2019 19: 25
      thank you for rating
      1. -9
        3 November 2019 19: 32
        Thank you for the article. Very interesting and useful, unfortunately, there are few of these at VO.
  17. -7
    3 November 2019 19: 15
    The author, thank you very much for a very interesting article that makes you think. Well, shots with take-off with a small interval are amazing ...
    1. +2
      3 November 2019 19: 27
      Yes, the personnel are excellent, I’ve looked at them from 1969 to the present day, it’s not even the fact of such a take-off that impresses me, how much, first of all, it’s massively ordinary combat crews, since this is a standard element of combat training, and secondly, that for decades without a clear enemy, they have practically not lost their combat readiness.

      Awesome discipline. We would be so.
      1. -2
        3 November 2019 19: 34
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        We would be so.

        With tongue removed. I, it was the case, I wanted to write this phrase - and then once again reviewed the 2 movie - I realized that more planes took off there quickly than we have the Tu-160x. It became sad and ... slushy in the weather.
  18. -11
    3 November 2019 19: 38
    ... And again Mr. Timokhin wrote an objective and correct article.
    The only "problem" is that the United States is preparing a new multifunctional bomber with a fundamentally different level of combat readiness and preparation time for a flight reduced to the level of a Raptor.
    In general, there is no "fundamentally special" preparation in the United States for a nuclear war with Russia or China, all topically trained Pentagon specialists are aware that the Russian Federation and, to a lesser extent, China, are highly likely to use nuclear weapons in one way or another against a fairly early stage of the conflict.
    There has not yet been a change in the nuclear paradigm relative to the Cold War era.
    1. +1
      3 November 2019 22: 49
      Now there is a "pumping" of capabilities for a sudden nuclear strike from the peacetime regime. And this is very dangerous.
      1. -6
        4 November 2019 19: 45
        In principle, it is excluded for the United States, if we are not talking about a single point single for some particularly dangerous target / object for the United States.
  19. +13
    3 November 2019 20: 00
    It is sad when a person writes on an interesting topic without understanding it at all. I will give just a few examples.
    1. Accelerating to supersonic at an altitude of 50 m is firstly unrealistic, and secondly not only deadly, but suicidal.
    2. the chances of the Tu-95 going on the attack from the sea - what kind of sea are we talking about? If about the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean, then the range is not enough.
    3. Freefall bombs are not the first strike weapon.
    4. After the first massive nuclear strike, the ability to redirect the bombers will be practically zero.
    Further laziness.
    The main problem of our strategists is the almost complete absence of tanker aircraft.
    1. +10
      3 November 2019 21: 06
      Remembered the joke:
      At the military department of long-range pilots, a teacher asks:
      What will you do while in the unit when they announce that the war has begun?
      Cadet - I'll go to sleep
      Etc - ???
      Cadet - According to the charter, 8 hours of sleep are required before a flight.
    2. +2
      3 November 2019 23: 02
      It’s sad when Sergey Valov begins to write about what he doesn’t understand and knows nothing about.

      Let us blow off this undeserved arrogance from you.

      1. Accelerating to supersonic at an altitude of 50 m is firstly unrealistic, and secondly not only deadly, but suicidal.


      Video of low altitude supersonic passes. There is a shock wave, there are visually observed optical effects at the front of the shock wave, anyone in the subject will understand everything.
      Heights - from TWENTY meters.



      Our pilots know how to do this no worse: the same Deinekin mentioned in the article was one of the specialists recognized in the USSR in such matters, it was he who had a record for the range of supersonic flights at ultra-low altitudes on the Tu-22M2. At 40-60 meters on the radio altimeter. True, over the sea and flat terrain.

      2. the chances of the Tu-95 going on the attack from the sea - what kind of sea are we talking about? If about the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean, then the range is not enough.




      Truth? And even this is not enough? Does Sergey Valov understand what is in this photo and why?

      3. Freefall bombs are not the first strike weapon.


      It is sad that a person is arguing with voices in his head. I did not write that free-falling bombs are the weapons of the first strike. This is not in the article. These are voices in the head. Do not listen to them.

      4. After the first massive nuclear strike, the ability to redirect the bombers will be practically zero.


      It depends on how ready the Air Force communication systems are for this situation and no more.

      The main problem of our strategists is the almost complete absence of tanker aircraft.


      Not complete. Just a few of them. But this can be corrected, and quickly, tankers are mass-produced, albeit in small quantities.

      I hope you will be more careful in choosing expressions from now on.
      1. +4
        4 November 2019 08: 01
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Our pilots know how to do this no worse: the same Deinekin mentioned in the article was one of the specialists recognized in the USSR in such matters, it was he who had a record for the range of supersonic flights at ultra-low altitudes on the Tu-22M2. At 40-60 meters on the radio altimeter. True, over the sea and flat terrain.

        If you still bother to open the RLE of the 45-02 aircraft, you will find out that its maximum instrumental speed is 1020 km / h.

        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Truth? And even this is not enough? Does Sergey Valov understand what is in this photo and why?

        What is the tactical radius of the Tu-95MS with six X-55s with one onboard refueling? What are you going to cover the refueling zone with? Actions in case of refueling failure?
      2. +5
        4 November 2019 20: 48
        timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin)

        Yeah .... the author ... and you still accuse Valov of ignorance and misunderstanding ...
        What low-altitude passages on the sound did you post on the video ???? Examine the question of what this phenomenon is .. And do not drag the shock waves, when switching to supersonic, in these videos .... Bullshit ..
        I am in the subject and understand that you are not in the subject ...
        And who is you wise to write on the aviation topic? About the fleet, submariners, I can still understand who ....
  20. AML
    +7
    3 November 2019 20: 09
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Grafomania is to saddle in quiet sadness, due to age-related changes in the nervous system laughing

    Why are you clinging to this Poseidon? Well there is. I have never heard that all emphasis is now on Poseidon, and all other species will be reduced. What is the problem with Poseidon? In stock?
    1. -2
      3 November 2019 23: 04
      The problem is Andryusha, who sells his account and provides it to various bad people, from the team that was promoting this cut, and at the same time yapping at me.
  21. AML
    +6
    3 November 2019 20: 15
    Quote: A.TOR

    In general, there is no "fundamentally special" preparation in the United States for a nuclear war with Russia or China, all topically trained Pentagon specialists are aware that the Russian Federation and, to a lesser extent, China, are highly likely to use nuclear weapons in one way or another against a fairly early stage of the conflict.


    Of course they will avoid it in every way possible. What then to do with this territory? Ok, okay, the states shot all their nuclear weapons at Russia. What's next? Or is radiation now geographically tied, like, no-no, beyond the borders of Russia? What will happen to the Scandinavians and the Poles? Purely economically, they did not care. In any case, this is a one-way road.
    1. -5
      3 November 2019 21: 38
      Yes, this is a one-way road. A dozen - another "Chernobyls" will make huge areas unsuitable for life for many decades. Nuclear weapons today are some guarantee to reduce the case to Versailles
    2. -1
      4 November 2019 06: 45
      Or is radiation now geographically tied, like, no-no, beyond Russia's borders? What will happen to the Scandinavians and the Poles?
      Yes, they do not give a damn, by and large, to the Scandinavians and Poles, KMK.
      But, nevertheless, you are right -
      Purely economically, they didn’t care
      And here the decrease in the power of charges, coupled with an increase in accuracy, is just alarming.
  22. +8
    3 November 2019 20: 25
    Of course, I am weak in aviation, I have always believed that the main advantage of "strategists" is precisely in the speed of response (or attack). A bomber can fire a salvo from alert mode directly near the adversary's borders. Moreover, this salvo will reach its targets much earlier than the warheads from strategic missiles fall. The flight time of the missiles has not been canceled. All coastal cities of the United States, as well as naval bases, can be destroyed in 5 ... 10 minutes. after "shooting". I think there are enough specialists on the site who can refresh the data on "how many missiles are there in the drum of the Tu-160 or Tu-95MS". But the worst thing is that such a volley is very difficult to detect, so it is especially dangerous when hitting the country's leadership and its control centers. No time for reaction. That is why the British and Americans experience acute bouts of diarrhea when Tu-160s fly near their shores. For each such point on the military's radar turns into a rather large radius of possible coverage. And God knows what is in the heads of these Russians ?!
    1. +5
      3 November 2019 21: 28
      You're not right. The reaction time for strategists is lower than for ICBMs, and moreover, significantly. To defeat targets from the strategist through 5 - 10 mines, he must fly at least 100 - 150 km from the territory of the adversary. Yes, even with nuclear weapons. How do you imagine that? As for "when the Tu-160 fly near their shores", this is manifested only in the media, professionals are well aware of the real state of affairs and react calmly to this.
      1. 0
        4 November 2019 06: 53
        To hit targets from the strategist in 5-10 minutes, he must fly at least 100-150 km from the territory of the adversary. Yes, even with nuclear weapons. How do you imagine that?
        Well, until 1992, air patrol with nuclear weapons on board was quite practiced. I’m not sure, however, at what distance from the borders. So, the ICBM, and, especially, the INF Treaty, of course, faster, I agree.
    2. -1
      3 November 2019 23: 04
      Moreover, this salvo will reach its targets much earlier than strategic missile warheads.


      No, it is not. ICBMs are faster anyway.
  23. -1
    3 November 2019 20: 34
    As for hell .... having nothing against the author, plus for the work of writing the article ... but ... were you and other commentators of your article just under mortar fire ... 82 mm ... but tightly like that. ..where with half an hour .... so to talk about nuclear hell, this is the lot of science fiction writers .. hell can be quite mundane, using good old weapons ....
  24. +10
    3 November 2019 20: 38
    Much has been written, but I have a question for the author - where did he read that our strategists carry free-falling bombs as a combat load? What Tu-95 and Tu-160 should pre0 to carry out some kind of air defense?
    Yes, the Americans are armed with tactical nuclear bombs, obviously hoping that they will be able to break through our air defense system and freely bomb and bomb ... What I'm not at all sure of.
    As far as I remember, our strategists are armed with cruise missiles with a range that does not require entering the enemy's air defense zone. In the case of understanding that the war has begun, the strategists do not wait at the "first-class airfield" for a command to take off. At this time, they must already be in the combat patrol zone to strike immediately, i.e. launch the CD and leave the zone for some alternate airfield. All our strategists' training indicates that the crews are preparing for many hours of loitering along with the tankers. So I categorically disagree with the author about the technical side of the use of strategic aviation.
    And yes. It was fun to read about the small cross-section of the Tu-95 glider and, accordingly, that there would be little bombs fit there. Tu-95 carries a combat load in the form of CR on an external sling. If anything...
    1. -1
      3 November 2019 23: 05
      You are wrong in everything if you do not go deep.

      Calculate the nuclear weapons assigned to the strategic nuclear forces according to START-3, for example
      1. +3
        4 November 2019 09: 47
        You are wrong in everything if you do not go deep

        And you go deep. At least try it. At the time of the conclusion of the contract, we were armed with only the X-55 and X-55SM. No bombs. For many decades, no bombs related to strategic nuclear weapons! They were not even when I graduated from a military school in the mid-80s. Now the carriers have changed, in the production of new cruise missiles, with an increased range. Under the agreement, the total number of warheads was preserved, but not missiles in the drum or on the suspension.
        Therefore, NO BOMB, NO ENTRANCE IN THE AIR DEFENSE, for;
        X-55 - range 3500km
        X-102 - range 5500 km.
        We do not consider the conventional tactical X-15 and X-101, although the X101 has the same 5500 km. But they do not fall under the contract.
        1. 0
          5 November 2019 13: 12
          No bombs. For many decades, no bombs related to strategic nuclear weapons!


          Here are just the number of charges and Raman assigned to the nuclear strategic nuclear forces differs significantly.

          Therefore, NO BOMB, NO ENTRANCE IN THE AIR DEFENSE, for;
          X-55 - range 3500km
          X-102 - range 5500 km.


          Which limits us only to strikes against stationary targets, the coordinates of which are precisely known. And only with one type of TSA, then the bombers can simply be thrown or you have to use missiles in non-nuclear equipment
          1. +2
            5 November 2019 17: 39
            Well enough already to fantasize. What type of bomb did we have, their number under the agreement, carriers. So that you can verify your information.
            And the fact that the number of allowed charges may not correspond to the quantity that is in service is always the case. The contract indicates only the upper limit, which cannot be exceeded. The same X-55 missile is not young. They are constantly removed and sorted out at the manufacturer's factory. They are not young already, the terms of restoration repair have come up for many.
  25. +1
    3 November 2019 20: 49
    Tin .. Either I'm a brake, or the article is muddy to complete impenetrability. I did not understand the main thing, what actually prevents me from retargeting a rocket in flight? Anyway, I somehow didn’t understand anything ..

    Is it possible again, slowly, for those who are in the tank, to repeat - but what is the problem actually !?
    1. -3
      3 November 2019 21: 44
      Lack of interface. On the contrary, having established such an interface (satellite or radio communication for loading and correcting a combat mission), the question immediately arises of intercepting control or the influence of electronic warfare to disrupt the operation of the rocket. If you fight with a technically backward enemy, then re-targeting missiles with conventional warheads makes sense, against an advanced opponent, and even if you use a special warhead, you can run into big trouble!
    2. -3
      3 November 2019 23: 06
      Technically unfeasible at the moment.
      1. +3
        4 November 2019 02: 33
        Come on you!
        Feasible in half a kilo! It is technically. But ideologically - scary. Correctly write - control interception is very likely.
        1. 0
          4 November 2019 20: 19
          With the current level of coding, cracking codes on the fly (literally) is completely unrealistic. And if the enemy has access to the nuclear codes in advance, then the "Oops" of course ..
    3. -3
      4 November 2019 03: 35
      What actually hinders re-targeting a rocket in flight?

      ballistic? Trajectory....
      1. 0
        4 November 2019 20: 17
        Quote: Avior
        ballistic? Trajectory....

        Actually, we are talking about bombers and cruise missiles. I'm not alone in the tank laughing
        1. -3
          4 November 2019 20: 57
          Either I’m a brake or the article is muddy to complete impenetrability. I did not understand the main thing, what actually prevents me from retargeting a rocket in flight?

          you wrote about missiles, not about bombers, without writing which ones you had in mind ...
          I clarified that if ballistic, then the trajectory.
          As for the winged, it is only the presence of a communication line.
          The last Tomahawks have retargeting in flight.
  26. Eug
    +2
    3 November 2019 20: 51
    Regarding the retargeting of launched CDs - an open question, at least the experience of "flashing orbital brains" is available. True, this experience remained in Ukraine at NPO Khartron, which in the 80s of the last century successfully carried out this operation with the Kvant orbital module that had lost control and was no less successful in developing control systems for strategic missile launchers, including aircraft-based ones. They were engaged in this (orbital and aerodynamic objects), however, different departments and divisions, it was in peacetime without the opposition of electronic warfare means and even more so without the influence of an electromagnetic pulse, but, as for me, if such a task was set by the developers, then it is feasible if the appropriate equipment is available on board the CD. If not set - to estimate the need and reality of implementation, based on the results, either re-equip the CD, or admit unreality.
    1. +8
      3 November 2019 21: 05
      Sorry for the immodest question. And why reassign the components of strategic weapons in flight or before if their goal is to retaliate and destroy predetermined goals, i.e. in the conditions of their application, all tactical tasks go along the side and it does not matter on average whether it flies through one mine or another, one city or another.
      1. Alf
        +4
        3 November 2019 21: 41
        Quote: 30hgsa
        no matter whether it arrives in one mine or in another,

        It is possible that the surviving satellite will report that this mine is empty, but the next one was made for firing.
        1. +8
          3 November 2019 21: 46
          1500 warheads went to different mines, ports, cities, headquarters, factories. After 20 minutes, your personal megaton will fly to you at your CP too. What are the redirects from a randomly empty mine? Neighboring, by the way, is also a target for its warhead. And the enemy will use countermeasures, so it is assumed that some% will be destroyed by missile defense, pass by targets, there will simply be a technical failure. Global nuclear war is a matter of statistics, not tactics.
          1. -3
            3 November 2019 23: 11
            1500 warheads went to different mines, ports, cities, headquarters, plant


            Of these, a third are for military infrastructure. Then what to do - the war continues, there are forty missiles left at the PGRK.

            Here is a typical task for amers - to go in a given area from the air of the PGRK, to drop a nuclear bomb at it.

            They do not have PGRK, but in any case there will be goals that need to be reached - for example, bombs that were not destroyed before, or survivors of the first raid on inter-flight service.

            Let's say by radio interception that there are three "birds" on the Ranger object. They will be there for seven hours. But there is no exact data on what the "Ranger" is, it could be one of three airfields. Satellites were blown away by orbital explosions, you can't look from above, there are few missiles, they can only be fired at known targets. Or they are no longer at all, all released.

            Americans will send aviation to such a task, with the order to find the target, and then cover.

            And we?
            1. +9
              3 November 2019 23: 22
              Breathe out the beaver, you-dy-hi.

              1. Why look for a PGRK that shot? And if you want to - why do you need a nuclear bomb, this is not your mine.

              2. How to target designation after a global nuclear strike? Who will conduct reconnaissance of objects behind enemy lines after a global strike? Who will give information about the PGRK over there? All reconnaissance will remain at the army level i.e. to the maximum range of front-line aviation.

              3. How can communication be carried out at a range of thousands of kilometers after a global strike in order to direct strategists somewhere behind enemy lines? There is no satellite connection.

              After the global exchange of attacks, there will be work on tactical nuclear weapons at the European theater of operations + work on groups of enemy ships. And here strategists are not needed - there simply will not be airfields with the desired take-off length. Front-line aviation will work, including with nuclear weapons.

              And what you draw here is only for you to write books in the style of Tom Clancy.
              1. -5
                3 November 2019 23: 45
                1. Why look for a PGRK that shot? And if you want to - why do you need a nuclear bomb, this is not your mine.


                And where did you get that he shot back?

                Who will give information about the PGRK over there?


                You see at all in the subject. That's just ABSOLUTELY.

                3. How can communication be carried out at a range of thousands of kilometers after a global strike in order to direct strategists somewhere behind enemy lines? There is no satellite connection.


                No, provided that there were explosions in the exosphere or space. I will not explain under what circumstances they will be, under what not.

                They may not be.

                After the global exchange of attacks, there will be work on tactical nuclear weapons at the European theater of operations + work on groups of enemy ships. And here strategists are not needed - there simply will not be airfields with the desired take-off length.


                There are more such airfields than can be covered with the help of all American ICBMs and SLBMs. Plus there are such vocals as take-off with an incomplete mass of fuel and refueling in the air - it can greatly reduce the significance of the class of the airfield.

                But you didn’t hear anything about it.
            2. +6
              4 November 2019 02: 44
              Imagine as a small child!
              They themselves wrote - There is no radio communication, Radio intelligence and additional intelligence for at least a couple of weeks. No. Only intelligence and optical, but without the ability to share what they saw.
              And all this against the backdrop of the horror of radioactive contamination, mountains of corpses, lack of electricity, fuel, transport, river spills after the destruction of dams, forest and city fires, a brutal population trying to find food, water, medicine and a place under the sun ...
              Your scenario is a scenario of limited nuclear war, say for the Crimea. Three AUGs entered the Black Sea and scandalized around Sevastopol.
              And the Russians in response hit Norfolk and San Diego. Only!
              Himself believe in such nonsense?
      2. Eug
        +1
        3 November 2019 22: 01
        I just express my opinion on the issue raised in the article, and argue it with the information available to me, which, in my opinion, is of interest to site visitors. It is up to the application specialists to whom I do not relate to decide whether to redirect the launched CDs.
        1. +5
          3 November 2019 22: 06
          The situation of global nuclear war is described. This means practically guaranteed destruction of headquarters and command posts. So imagine. An order came. You turned the key. Your rockets are gone. On the one hand, you just killed hundreds of thousands of people, maybe a million. It depends on where your rockets fly. At the same time, you know very well that in ten to fifteen minutes you will receive a gift from the other side, sharpened for the destruction of you personally. And you die, 99% that you die. What redirection and tracking can we talk about?
          1. -3
            3 November 2019 23: 12
            Will not cover everyone.
            1. +6
              3 November 2019 23: 28
              Airfields suitable for take-off strategists will cover everything. You can’t hide them underground.
              All large radars and communication stations will be covered - you can’t hide them underground either.
              As a result, there will be no connection with the strategists in the air and no one will order them anything, and they will have nowhere to return.
              1. -3
                3 November 2019 23: 46
                As a result, there will be no connection with the strategists in the air and no one will order them anything, and they will have nowhere to return.


                Well, count already please the rockets of the enemy, well, after all, even a child can do this, it can even do a down.
                Do it, you will succeed.
  27. +14
    3 November 2019 20: 57
    Normal for VO nonsense. The article level is simply below the lowest baseboard.

    As for the "retargeting" and the attack with free-falling bombs ... well, let's take the case described by the author "a bombed airfield and something is being taken out of it in trucks."
    - Firstly, after an exchange of nuclear strikes, who will provide intelligence and target designation for the attack of a bombed airfield?
    - secondly - to bomb a specific target to solve a specific task ... this is a niche of tactical nuclear weapons, the strategic deterrence forces are created precisely for causing unacceptable damage, and not solving tactical tasks.
    - thirdly, who will give the command to attack the airfield? After the exchange of nuclear weapons, even if the headquarters remain, there will be no communication.

    Aviation as an element of the triad exists purely for one thing - to level out the possibility of intercepting missiles or a disarming strike as much as possible simply by introducing another way of using nuclear weapons from the game. The Tu-160 in the air with cruise missiles in the menacing period is another additional, rapidly moving headache. So the very same nuclear submarines are inferior in conditions of tracking them for ground-based strategic nuclear forces - but by complicating the retaliatory strike scheme, the element of uncertainty also increases in terms of interception or preemptive strike. That is why we have not had a triad in fact for a long time, it is simply a triad because of subordination ... and the eggs are laid out in different baskets of RPKSN + PGRK + MBRK mine-based + Strategic bombers with missiles + declared missiles of intercontinental range + submarines of intercontinental range, and there were also BZHRK. And here it’s not a matter of the effectiveness of each individual device, from the point of view of cost / effectiveness, they have not yet come up with anything better than silo-based ICBMs, but ... If there is a risk to get to the side of the untrained TU-160, PGRK, Poseidon, BZHRK, SSBN, petrel ... it acts chillingly on the hottest heads.

    And in recent years, it has degraded very much, Kaptsov something has not been heard for a long time. He has not yet invented an armored intercontinental missile?
    1. -3
      3 November 2019 23: 15
      - Firstly, after an exchange of nuclear strikes, who will provide intelligence and target designation for the attack of a bombed airfield?


      For example, some last surviving satellite will take a photo, headquarters in case of war are reserved, the only question is if there are planes and TSA.

      - thirdly, who will give the command to attack the airfield? After the exchange of nuclear weapons, even if the headquarters remain, there will be no communication.


      There will be ALMOST communication. Do not confuse, this is a big difference.

      Aviation as an element of the triad exists purely for one thing - to level out the possibility of intercepting missiles or a disarming strike as much as possible simply by introducing another method of using nuclear weapons from the game.


      Write to the Pentagon that they don’t understand anything in the air war.
      1. +8
        3 November 2019 23: 31
        You made my day :) About the last surviving satellite, at the last gasp, it takes a photo ... And what connection will you have with this satellite?
        I'm not talking about clouds of dust, smoke ...
        I'm not talking about the fact that satellites move in low-orbit orbits, i.e. in the area of ​​electromagnetic radiation from high-altitude explosions.
        I ask, where will you get the satellite tracking station - will it crawl out from under the ground like in transformers? So it and under the earth will blow up to hell - this is the goal number 1.
        1. -2
          3 November 2019 23: 50
          I told you about high-altitude explosions several times. I don’t know how much you are aware of where they come from, I hope you have enough brains not to develop this topic online.
      2. +4
        3 November 2019 23: 45
        As for the connection "there will be almost no". Well, tell me with the help of what you will direct a strategist at a target 5000 km from the base after a global nuclear strike. Long-distance communication stations, this structure is quite dimensional and the goal at the top of the list. Communication at such distances will not be almost, but in general. Worse, there will be no ZHEPP and you will have to reach a point target using a map, compass and landmarks on the terrain with appropriate accuracy :)
        1. -4
          4 November 2019 02: 36
          Well, tell me how you will aim the strategist at 5000 km from the base after a global nuclear strike.


          Do you understand that the effects of EMR sharply weaken both with time and with distance? To turn off all communications in the northern hemisphere, you need to explode a lot of warheads both in outer space and at the border of the atmosphere.

          I know where they will come from, and why they will explode, I won’t write about it, but, let’s say, it will only be with a reciprocal strike with all our forces, but with a simple response it will no longer be a fact or on a small scale. So the connection will be cut down focally.

          For the military, especially ours, loss of communication is the biggest fear, we have a generic trauma from the 1941 of the year, in this sense everything is so duplicated and reserved that there aren’t enough ICBMs and SLBMs to cover everything, it’s enough to withdraw the Strategic Missile Forces control system and then for a while and then if we miss the first blow (which, incidentally, is not impossible).

          And with all other options, there will always be somewhere terrain with minimal interference, there will be surviving transmitters, cable communications between radio stations, surviving satellites, you can advance in advance and restore what we once had - airplanes, repeaters, there are a lot of options on the business - if you prepare for this.
          1. -1
            4 November 2019 11: 20
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            To turn off all communications in the northern hemisphere, you need to explode a lot of warheads both in outer space and at the border of the atmosphere.
            One, at 400 MT, sort of.
          2. +1
            4 November 2019 20: 39
            After a global nuclear strike, the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere for at least three more days will "ring" from the induced radiation! Even by a miracle, the remaining radio communications will be able to work no further than several kilometers. Smoke and raised dust and soot will make communications problematic for several more months, limiting communications to line-of-sight. Try to find special literature on this subject, a lot of interesting things are written there!
    2. +1
      4 November 2019 07: 07
      Quote: 30hgsa
      Kaptsov something has not been heard for a long time

      How is it "not heard"? :) A couple of days ago he taught everyone here that the P-38 Lightning was designed fundamentally wrong.
  28. +4
    3 November 2019 21: 05
    For Americans, guided missiles have always been a means of “hacking anti-aircraft defense” along the way to the bomb target. Deliver nuclear missiles from afar and from a safe distance, against previously known anti-aircraft defense facilities, air bases, long-range radars that survived an ICBM strike, then break through devastated zones to the main targets in the depths of the enemy’s territory. That is why they almost never with the advent of new missiles did not re-equip all aircraft under them.


    The only thing is not clear: if the air defense has been "hacked" by guided missiles, then what prevents the same missiles from being destroyed? Why fence this garden with strategic aviation?
    1. 0
      3 November 2019 21: 07
      Quote: Arkon
      For Americans, guided missiles have always been a means of “hacking anti-aircraft defense” along the way to the bomb target. Deliver nuclear missiles from afar and from a safe distance, against previously known anti-aircraft defense facilities, air bases, long-range radars that survived an ICBM strike, then break through devastated zones to the main targets in the depths of the enemy’s territory. That is why they almost never with the advent of new missiles did not re-equip all aircraft under them.


      The only thing, it is not clear: if the air defense is "hacked" by guided missiles, then what prevents the same missiles from destroying the "main targets"? Why bother building a garden with strategic aviation?

      The author needs something to explain the contents of the arsenal of this zoo from 60 years. Here and invents these absurdities
      1. +13
        3 November 2019 21: 41
        The zoo is kept on a "just in case" principle. The more methods of delivery of the response, the less chances that the enemy will believe that they will be able to fend off everything through missile defense or a disarming strike. If the answer is only an ICBM, then there is a danger that the enemy will believe in his own propaganda and decide that his Aegis and Standards will rule. But if through space ICBMs from mines, from taiga from wheels, from under water from SSBNs, from an unknown station in Zazhopinsk ... and also a dozen Poseidons with a bunch of megatons are scampering under water and it is 100% unclear what is wrong with them , and in the air Tu-160 with CD that will go after high-altitude detonation of charges, and also simply CD that can fly somewhere along an unknown route - then it's scary and somehow its own missile defense is no longer credible. All this despite the fact that, purely theoretically, mine ICBMs are cheaper and more efficient than anything described. But the task is not to ditch the world but to scare the enemy so that he tries to use nuclear weapons first.
      2. -3
        3 November 2019 23: 17
        Strange, in the USA for some reason they think as an author.

        There are probably no brains.
        1. +1
          4 November 2019 20: 43
          Did they report to you that they think so?
    2. -1
      3 November 2019 23: 16
      Sometimes it would be so. Not always. There are targets whose location is not known exactly. There are mobile targets - PGRK, for example. There are protected targets that can be reached by detonation strictly above the target or even with a direct hit (bunkers of various kinds), etc.
      1. +1
        4 November 2019 10: 06
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        There are targets whose location is not known exactly. There are mobile targets - PGRK, for example.


        Mmmm ... The strategist will fly to bomb PGRK? A little tense, doesn't it seem? Just by comparing the time of arrival of the strategist and the time of preparation for launching the RK.

        For me, strategic aviation simply adds stability to the entire nuclear deterrent system. But it is precisely deterrence, because it will not work out preemptively with its help. Only as an additional launch site for rockets. That is why strategists are now used exclusively in local conflicts and "not quite as intended."

        Well, or somehow else it is necessary to justify the tactics of their use in an offensive nuclear strike. The version presented in the article is not very convincing, in my opinion.
        1. 0
          4 November 2019 11: 21
          Quote: Arkon
          Mmmm ... The strategist will fly to bomb PGRK? A little tense, doesn't it seem?
          B-2 did just for this
          1. 0
            4 November 2019 17: 17
            Yes? Did not know. But, apparently, it was still about the independent overcoming of the air defense and about the strike in the first orders. Then there was the illusion of "invisibility". If the task of an independent breakthrough of air defense becomes irrelevant due to the obvious impossibility, then the task of "hunting" for mobile complexes is removed. Is not it so?
            1. +1
              4 November 2019 18: 30
              To convince to give such grandmothers for the Nortrop plane then a lot of things came up. And the hunt for PGRK (quietly sneaking into our territory, and before launching the ICBM, it will find and destroy the PGRK on the route), and the tank destroyer (yeah, the strategic bomber - the tank destroyer) and even huge savings:

              PS How many Americans did not fight, never used B-2 before suppressing air defense.
              1. 0
                5 November 2019 13: 18
                To convince to give such grandmothers for the Nortrop plane then a lot of things came up.


                With a successful decapitating and disarming strike between the moment of the attack and the passage of the launch command to the surviving PGRK, a considerable time gap arises. But this case is needed by the B-2 with nuclear bombs - air defense after a massive ICBM strike will not be in the form of, let’s say, and the Americans are confident that the planes will have a chance to find part of the PGRK that did not have time to shoot.
                1. 0
                  5 November 2019 19: 35
                  Between the start and start of the Minutemen and Trident and the “decapitating” strike, there are definitely 20-30 minutes. This is more than enough for the passage of the team to ALL of our carriers of strategic weapons, who, from the moment they receive the team, begin to work it out according to previously approved plans.
                  The mines open and missiles go to the addressees, the boats look for the nearest wormwood or fire torpedoes to create it and launch targets, PGRK enters the area and also launches. In a threatened period (there is one, by the way), the dirt roadmen also do not sit in the bases and you still have to try to find them and cover them. Aviation once a minute, one and a half is taking off. Before the arrival of the first combat unit, a regiment will rise from a particular regimental base ...
                  Probably, at the same time, containers of deep-sea Scythians are uncorking, which will also fly somewhere ...

                  And who will be the non-shooter here?
      2. 0
        4 November 2019 10: 31
        By the way, if we talk about retargeting, then it is precisely at the stage of approaching the air defense borders that retargeting is really important. It can be assumed that the first strike will reveal the weaknesses of the air defense, to which, subsequently, mobile pads will be redirected in the form of strategists ...
  29. 0
    3 November 2019 21: 37
    And this is Tu-95MS, our days ... Diaghilev
    1. -2
      3 November 2019 23: 17
      Yes, this is Diaghilev.
  30. +1
    3 November 2019 21: 43
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    To defeat targets from the strategist through 5 - 10 mines, he must fly at least 100 - 150 km from the territory of the adversary.

    Something like this. And most likely not 100-150km, but 200-250 nautical miles.
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    Yes, even with nuclear weapons. How do you imagine that?

    As a solution to the logistic problem. And the nuclear weapons of these bombers are already on board.
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    As for "when the Tu-160 fly near their shores", this is manifested only in the media, professionals are well aware of the real state of affairs and react calmly to this.

    The media is just foam on the surface from the seething in the stomachs of real rulers. And the military does not care about the unstable and changeable "real state of affairs" - the main thing is the possibility and it is.
    1. +8
      3 November 2019 22: 20
      “And most likely not 100-150km, but 200-250 nautical miles” 200 miles is 350 km, for the Kyrgyz Republic it’s not 5 to 10 minutes of flight, but 30. If the rocket is supersonic, then it is on an external sling and does not barrage with them. In general, they do not barrage with missiles, because they have a very small resource in terms of the number of takeoffs and landings.
      “As a solution to the logistic problem” - I don’t know what the logistic task is, but the fact that the Russian Federation has cried for tanker planes is notorious for everyone, but barracks on a regular basis are a fantasy thing for our strategists.
      “The main opportunity and it is” is practically nonexistent, see above.
  31. +1
    3 November 2019 22: 02
    Quote: 30hgsa
    Kaptsov had not heard something for a long time.

    You offend! He is busy analyzing the excessive displacement in the hull of an American WWII fighter. An article about Lightning R-38 in the "Armament" section of 04.04.2019/164243/38: https://topwar.ru/XNUMX-propavshee-vodoizmeschenie-istrebitelja-p-XNUMX-lajtning.html
    1. +4
      3 November 2019 22: 10
      Yooo ... thanks for the tip :))) I’m sure to read it now, I need to understand the main thing - it measures the displacement at lightning full or standard. :)
  32. +2
    3 November 2019 22: 03
    Curious thinking.

    But the main mistake in thinking is temporary.

    These arguments are relevant for a time when someone else was going to win in a total nuclear war. It was planned to launch all ICBMs immediately, and then, in conditions of partially suppressed air defense, bombers would complete the job.

    Now the concept is different: the task of nuclear weapons is to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. For ICBMs alone are more than enough to stop the existence of any state on the planet with a first strike.
    1. -5
      3 November 2019 22: 57
      the power of nuclear weapons is a myth introduced by the NSA. the Soviet leadership and people were led to this scam:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH9ULuskKqY
      Only a tsunami can make retribution. Only Poseidons. Before Putin, they weren’t.
      1. -3
        4 November 2019 02: 39
        Only Poseidons.


        It's just a giant drank money and nothing more.

        Before Putin, they weren’t.


        There are none even now, and the program started quite before Putin, specifically, in the 1984 year. And has been going since. There, for several generations, his hands warmed up.
    2. -1
      3 November 2019 23: 19
      Now there are far fewer strategic warheads on strategic carriers than before. In fact, we have fallen to the point where a nuclear war can already be waged.
  33. +3
    3 November 2019 22: 17
    "What to say, what to say,
    So arranged people
    Want to know, want to know
    They want to know what will happen ... "

    After a recent voyage to the Russian shores, one B-52 caught fire in England, and aircraft parts flew into the garden of an English lady from another.
    Sometimes ...

    Funny comments are available ..
    https://gosh100.livejournal.com/224743.html?page=2
    1. -4
      3 November 2019 23: 20
      After a recent voyage to the Russian shores, one B-52 caught fire in England, and aircraft parts flew into the garden of an English lady from another.
      Sometimes ...


      Well, so many years already fly. There, with 2017, they stopped allocating money for them to practice nuclear bomb attacks. It all ends sometime.

      But there are also B-1 and B-2, and the Raider is on its way.
      1. -3
        4 November 2019 01: 18
        What's the problem with the Raider? Well, there is no him, and hell knows when it will be, and when it will be, then that it will also be nobody knows.
        World War III is in full swing!
        This is the usual shooting: if only the chain of fire did not disappear, but the shell flew off in the right direction.
        And in cartoons, we have partners with full Ok.

        We will send another "Deinekin" to the tank, he will accelerate this "Raider" to hypersonic sound at an altitude of 50 meters, he will come home and teach everyone how to do it ... Anyone can fly on their bombers as he wants.
        Really?
        There, political clowns rule the defense and attack, the couturiers rule us (we don’t go anywhere, they strive to put on new spoils for everyone, they have a textile interest), and they are also a German club.
        The first did not serve a day, the second from the overwhelming service at the place of residence, from "hardships and hardships" screwed up to term.

        You say "B-1", you can't read the comments? And this, by the way, is the most important thing in any scientific work. If anything, we have Tu-22s, they are clearly spelled out about them.

        That’s what, here Medvedev flickered some regular shipbuilding program for days. Cough up the topic with the shipbuilding Lisa Peskova, she did a lot of work for you in YouTube. You get along.

        Just meet two loneliness
        They will make a fire by the road
        Suddenly the fire will want to flare up,
        And go, fly ..... conversation.

        Shl By the way, now the note in the "Battle leaf" at what price is it?
  34. xax
    +1
    3 November 2019 22: 33
    And I thought that the trick was that the strategist could be on duty at the adversary’s borders without consequences, while the launch of a ballistic missile towards the enemy would inevitably be perceived as the beginning of the war.
    And for this duty, cruise missiles are clearly better than the "good old" free-fall ingots.
  35. +1
    3 November 2019 22: 37
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    200 miles is 350 km, for the Kyrgyz Republic it is not 5 - 10 minutes of flight, but 30.

    This is if launched from a distance of 200 miles, not 150 miles (the range of the X15 aeroballistic missile). The bomber will cover 50 miles at a speed of Mach 2 in 3 minutes, the remaining 150 miles of an X15 rocket at a speed of Mach 5 will fly in 3,5 minutes. - total 7,5 minutes Let's throw on the error of the distance to the target, as well as the crew and missiles to "accelerate" another 2 minutes - then 9,5 minutes. Fuuh ... met in 10 minutes.
    But the Tu-160 can also carry longer-range missiles, although their speed is subsonic, but the range is 3500 km (X55) - 5000 km (X-101 or X-102). Here and inside the mainland you cannot hide, and you can no longer patrol not 200 miles, but outside the range of the interceptors. Here "these" things will already fly for 30 minutes.
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    “The main opportunity and it is” is practically nonexistent, see above.

    The military cannot afford to think that way. If a military man begins to operate with the concept of "practically," "in fact," "for sure," then he is not a military man, but a politician, and an illiterate one.
    1. +6
      3 November 2019 23: 04
      A barricading strategist with nuclear weapons on board in the trouble-free range of enemy fighter aircraft .... No comment.
  36. -4
    3 November 2019 22: 53
    Missiles are a one-time weapon. Fly away - get Kalashnikov. The problem of retaliation is solved only by Poseidon - the tsunami. The rest is a scam.
    1. Alf
      +3
      3 November 2019 23: 28
      Quote: Inspector
      The problem of retaliation is solved only by Poseidon - the tsunami.

      Take a break with your Poseidon, Academician Sakharov.
  37. +3
    3 November 2019 22: 57
    For example, a ballistic missile delivered a nuclear strike at an air base where some of the enemy's bombers and their nuclear bombs were located. However, intelligence tools (no matter what) the enemy’s activity was established to export something from this zone on a large number of trucks. Let's say at this moment to a nearby secondary goal There is a plane with a nuclear bomb. Since the goal clearly secondaryThere’s no point in spending ICBMs on it; you cannot leave it as it is, since it’s still important. At this point, the bomber can be retargeted, because with a high degree of probability the surviving nuclear bombs are taken out on trucks, otherwise why would they still poke around in the radioactive contamination zone?

    Author, you write scripts for Marvel's films. What is the "secondary goal"? Nuclear war is a war of annihilation. Plans, both ours and the American ones, do not provide for the partial use of nuclear weapons for 1-5-10 targets. Nuclear weapons are a doomsday weapon, there will be no freaks taking out the remnants of "what unfinished" arsenal. Please do not write anything else, you better sell buns at McDonald's.
    1. -3
      4 November 2019 02: 40
      This is for you to sell buns, a nuclear strategist. Of course, everyone will immediately die here and the fairy tale ends - that's how it is planned.
  38. +1
    3 November 2019 23: 02
    The video, frankly, was very impressive.
  39. +3
    3 November 2019 23: 03
    I am not sure that we generally have a certain sensible concrete strategy for waging a nuclear war. What I see I see as an analogy with the wars of antiquity - when all sorts of barbarians against the Roman legions climbed out with painted wild faces, gnawed shields, shook axes and roared with terrible voices, and then fled into the attack with naked torsos. All this had its own strategy - akin to our strategy of "nuclear deterrence" - this is one problem, if the enemy was not afraid and did not flee with flashing heels, when reaching the legionnaires' formations there were always "problems". I have concerns that our strategy has now overdone the axioms and the element of intimidation. This does not negate the power of our weapon and its individual samples ... however, it can lead our enemy to thoughts similar to those described above. With all that it implies ..
    As for the aircraft, on this very problem of the "intelligibility" of our nuclear war strategy, we do not observe sufficient intelligibility in this direction. It seems to me that our strategists do not really believe that in the event of "X-day" our planes will reach the US territory.
  40. -1
    3 November 2019 23: 03
    In the first photo - non-optimal mode dvigunov. At the optimum, the flame is blue.
    1. -4
      4 November 2019 02: 41
      Well, at low altitude flight. This is an optimal mode for NK-32.
      1. 0
        4 November 2019 13: 54
        Once, back in 1991, Aviation Day was held in Zhukovsky. There were even Yak-38 hanging, a couple of pieces. And there was a Tu-160 flight, it was then that I admired the complete combustion of fuel in its compressor station. He went up almost directly above the audience. Compared to the Yak-38, it went off completely silently.
  41. +2
    3 November 2019 23: 04
    The war will not be between countries !!! And between NATO and the Russian Federation.
  42. +1
    3 November 2019 23: 10
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    A barricading strategist with nuclear weapons on board in the trouble-free range of enemy fighter aircraft .... No comment.

    It is right. Sometimes it is better to be silent than to speak. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) Only the concept of "reach of fighter aircraft" needs to be applied with an amendment to the "probability of interception".
  43. RAM
    -1
    3 November 2019 23: 14
    Well, it’s clear that everything was lost, our aviation is in a big ass and we are throwing hats at us from their strategists. Glory to the USA! Bonus to the author: you can take a pie from the shelf.
    1. Alf
      +3
      3 November 2019 23: 32
      Quote: RAM
      Well, it’s clear that everything was lost, our aviation is in a big ass and we are throwing hats at us from their strategists.

      In the 41st WE also threatened to throw Germany their hats, and stopped already near Moscow.
      If the author sees problems in our armed forces, why not make them public and think about how to solve them?
      1. -3
        3 November 2019 23: 46
        Alf, flawed logic, no offense, try to think for yourself:

        Quote: Alf
        If the author sees problems in our sun

        are the author’s problems

        Quote: Alf
        why not make them public

        - it's done

        Quote: Alf
        and not think about how to solve

        - But what, really, is what to decide?

        #all polypropolymers ....

        Alf, what did you throw into the apartment from the counter? Eight copper, EMNIP? Strong Yes
        1. -1
          4 November 2019 02: 42
          Do not forget to grease the hat-thrower. And then with a little blood on the territory of the enemy in two hours one regiment will not work.
      2. RAM
        -2
        4 November 2019 11: 22
        My friend, read carefully, did I write that we will throw ov hats? No, and again no, I wrote that they would shower us. Moreover, Mr. Trump constantly repeats about successes in military construction. I, as well as the author, dream that the most high-tech bombs from the most invisible aircraft would pour on our bad heads. And you unfoundedly accuse me of urapatriotizm and hatred.
  44. +4
    3 November 2019 23: 22
    Shine! What a flight of fantasy! And what logic! Women nervously smoke))) I haven't laughed so much for a long time over the attempts of another "expert" of the level of a blonde from YouTube)) to pass off my fantasies as analysts))). I imagined how the strategist's crew breaks through to the target on its plane with a nuclear bomb at low level flight, successfully drops the product onto a convoy carrying enemy nadrenbatons and, with the realization of deep satisfaction from the completed task, burns up together with the plane in a nuclear explosion, having finally showed the enemy the average finger))).
    Urgently fill out an application for new tactics of using nuclear bombs to the General Staff))) But seriously. Do not write more on this topic is not yours.
    1. -3
      4 November 2019 02: 43
      And what about a nuclear bomb dropped from an airplane burning an airplane? Here is the news.
      1. +4
        4 November 2019 09: 51
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And what about a nuclear bomb dropped from an airplane burning an airplane? Here is the news.

        Looking at your expression of "sincere" bewilderment, I recall the end of an old anecdote - the Chukchi is not a reader, the Chukchi is a writer.)) That is, you could not understand the meaning of not only what you wrote, but also my 250 letters))). You drown half an article for vigorous loaves on strategists instead of missiles, for breakthroughs to a target at ultra-low altitudes like Lancers, that is, proceeding from your own delirium - dropping special ammunition at an ultra-low altitude, do you assume that the carrier will survive? )))) Well then, excuse me - medicine is powerless here.
        I'm not talking about your other ROFLs))) like:
        Cruise missiles with nuclear warheads are a type of weapon that limits the flexibility of aviation - with it, the strategic nuclear forces can either deliver the same “unavoidable” strike as a ballistic missile

        Yeah, that is, a launched rocket is an “unrequited” blow, and a dropped bomb is a recall)))), what is it that is being dropped on the cord?))) Can it be pulled back?)). I then naively thought that while the carrier did not use a weapon, it can be recalled in any case))), but noooet, only with bombs)))
        But if the bomber does not fly to the target with a bomb, and fired a cruise missile two hours ago, then there’s nothing to be done - the enemy will take out the bombs and then use them against us.

        And if he already bombed 2 hours ago? ))) As I understand it, you are drowning for the fact that the bombs take longer to reach the target and that means there is an opportunity to find another target and choose it, so it can fly with zigraz or snake missiles - the same time will be))), and it’s even better to roll the bomb on land, then in general the choice of goals will be limitless.
        And now tell me the strategist sofa, in the case of the beginning of the global Arctic fox strategists will carry one bomb or missile or will be loaded to the eyeballs? Take the Tu-160, since the Tu-95MS, oops does not have an aim for the use of free-falling bombs, but they adapted the Tu-160, so in which loading variant will the carrier have more opportunities to hit targets located in completely different directions? A strategist with missiles that will fly over 5000+ km or a strategist who himself needs to fly over each target, and if in total this exceeds its maximum range, where will your columns with enemy bombs refuel? How long will they wait?))))
        1. 0
          5 November 2019 13: 14
          dropping special ammunition at a very low altitude, you assume that the carrier will survive? )))) Well then, I'm sorry - medicine is powerless here.


          At low altitude, a breakthrough to the target, dropping a nuclear bomb from a low altitude is your voice in your head, not me.
          1. +1
            5 November 2019 21: 51
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            dropping special ammunition at a very low altitude, you assume that the carrier will survive? )))) Well then, I'm sorry - medicine is powerless here.


            At low altitude, a breakthrough to the target, dropping a nuclear bomb from a low altitude is your voice in your head, not me.

            Fabulous and masterpiece. Dear, do not smack nonsense - it hurts, on issues of votes - this is to 03. What do you mean by a breakthrough to the target at low altitude? People without votes understand this as a set of measures to ensure that the carrier reaches the target location at a distance sufficient for the use of airborne weapons and successful destruction of the target. What do you have? Break through at low altitude into the target zone and .... teleport higher? or stopped the breakthrough in advance and began to climb by substituting for air defense?
            Decipher for not so gifted as you the meaning of sending your article? And he is like this:
            ICBMs are not as flexible as Strategists, but are strategists with bombs even more flexible than with o_O missiles, and more flexible because flying with a bomb to a target is longer than with an o_O missile and further in the text about Lancer with its low-altitude target and group take-offs? Why did you tie it all together? What conclusion? I have the one that I wrote - the epic bombing of the core, and what do your voices say? Maybe you don’t deal with graphomania anymore on topics completely unknown to you, otherwise my phrase constantly turns around - this is a fiasco bro.
            1. 0
              5 November 2019 22: 02
              Quote: JD1979
              Break through at low altitude into the target zone and .... teleport higher?
              It seems that they have long come to the point that every little thing will be thrown nuclear bombs from the cabriolet. The strategist, of course, does not master this.
  45. +4
    3 November 2019 23: 27
    Quote: 210ox
    Thanks to the author for the detailed article. For me, some things were news.

    I wonder which ones? How, after the first nuclear strike, do cranks take out trucks that have not detonated nuclear weapons from the air base? Hollywood is resting. And if a nuclear bomb from an airplane does not finish the convoy? Your versions ...
    1. +5
      3 November 2019 23: 35
      Note, the truck convoy, as well as the PGRK, the author suggests bombing with special ammunition :)
      This is an extremely important goal - the heels of trucks that take the remains of stew to the tundra. Or PGRK fired back. (in order to make sure - they are taking out the nuclear weapons - intelligence work is needed, and her - intelligence - is no longer at such distances :)
      1. +5
        3 November 2019 23: 40
        hi And there will already be nothing at all. I am laughing so much tonight
  46. +5
    3 November 2019 23: 36
    Quote: 210ox
    Thanks to the author for the detailed article. For me, some things were news.

    What if not a secret? How do some cranks, after the first nuclear strike at an air base, take out an undetected and unused nuclear weapon in an unknown direction? Hollywood nervously smokes on the sidelines. The author, and if the plane redirected by you does not finish off the column with a nuclear bomb? The Americans in the movies and this does not happen. Your actions?
  47. +5
    3 November 2019 23: 53
    I can not deny myself the pleasure.



    What is called - replenished. People said goodbye to aviation, and ... said goodbye request
  48. -2
    3 November 2019 23: 54
    An explanatory article by a competent author. I don’t want to upset anyone. ... But SO, this is the case with both the PL (NPS) and the BTT ... The ubiquitous, “image of life,” and not LIFE itself. Why does this take place in the army and navy? Including because there are a lot of random people. I met a senior officer of the SV of the Russian Federation who was very fond of yachts and the features of spoken English for America. Everything would be fine, but it was an officer-educator of the university of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. I had occasion to meet the chief of an aviation military school, who had nothing to do with aviation in all his previous life. The builder was by education ... ,, nepotism ,,, however. ... In the military universities and in the 90s and now go not only patriots, but also ,, cynical pragmatists ,,. Education is free, the form is beautiful, full welfare, money allowance, classmates are thrilled ... They finish school and go to the national economy in various ways, or to a warm place, organized by the pope as a general, or serve on the principle : ,, If only the day until the evening ... ,, We need published PLACES IN ISSUE, we need a difference in ranks for excellent students, junior commanders and mediocre graduates. The Law of God and skydiving, horseback riding and ARB, fencing and ballroom dancing are needed at universities of the Moscow region ... A clear system of punishments and rewards, immersion, in the profession from the first year, and not boring, gradual advancement to the actual military disciplines on senior courses.
    After school, you need a social elevator for those in love with the profession and a fine filter for useless loafers. Short-term courses and internships in higher posts, mandatory annual parachute jumps and verification of the candidate’s physical fitness for the next rank, shooting with all types of small arms and scoring based on the results of certification ... Someone would do this all, anyone would be interested?
    About excessive enthusiasm for submarines in general and nuclear submarines with ICBMs in particular. What caused it? Do not modern, Nakhimovs, know about the percentage of sunk submarines of the RKKF during WWII знают They do not know that 75 years ago the Anglo-Saxons really controlled practically the whole Atlantic
    About tanks that scare Europe. There are no commander tanks, no ammunition carriers, no trailers ... They scared the hedgehog ... I’ll finish. This is not an article, but a weak comment on a strong article
    1. Alf
      +5
      4 November 2019 00: 39
      Quote: evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru
      The Law of God is needed at universities

      Well, there are no priests ... The main striking force ..
      Quote: evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru
      horseback riding

      Also necessary ...
      Quote: evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru
      skydiving,

      In artillery and tank schools the most necessary ...
      Quote: evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru
      fencing and ballroom dancing ...

      No comment ...
  49. -2
    4 November 2019 00: 20
    After a mass strike of ICBMs)) there will be such an offset, azimuth and coordinates. What I do not envy flying. So this is a complete profonation now!
    1. -1
      4 November 2019 02: 44
      Earth will fly on the celestial axis!
  50. -1
    4 November 2019 00: 42
    Quote: Severok
    Strategists need to return the opportunity that they had before - a change in combat mission in flight or its receipt after takeoff. In any way.


    I don’t quite agree with you. First you need to return the following:
    - normal level of staffing of the Air Force
    - normal BP level of the Air Force personnel
    - the normal level of supply of equipment, infrastructure and consumables of the Air Force

    Then it will be possible to talk about strategic aviation at the proper level for such a power as Russia, as well as for the full and sufficient disclosure of its capabilities.
    .
    And for this it is imperative to change the SYSTEM of public administration, which does not provide the proper level of security for the country, both economic and domestic. A system built by liberal rubbish such as HSE graduates and interns in the United States during their studies (and not only) is dangerous for Russia's security.

    Yes Yes Yes good hi
  51. +3
    4 November 2019 01: 22
    I’ll add my 5 cents 1) The air component of the triad is needed because the means to counter it are different from the means to counter ground-based ICBMs and SSBNs. Google about all sorts of Nikes, the Norad line, etc. If the bombers were removed, they could ditch all this bullshit and free up a ton of money. 2) The Tu-160 was taught to bomb, but not in the USSR, but in the Russian Federation and with conventional bombs. I don’t remember how it all ended. 3). if you add a radar and modify the avionics). 160). The Bundeswehr received Mig-160s. It suddenly became clear that the Mig-4 radar not only successfully sees the B-2, but sees it even against the background of the earth (moreover, the Mig-90 radar, not the only and not the main means of detection, also has some pretty good optics). There was a big scandal in narrow circles and the B-29 series was abruptly canceled (although the Americans tried to finish invisibility in episode 29, but I didn’t hear about the results). 2)
    2. The United States is increasing the accuracy of nuclear bombs, while simultaneously reducing the power of detonation, this applies to both types of bombs, and B-63 and B-83.
    I heard an opinion that both of them are caused by the fact that they “scraped the polymers”: they not only have problems with restoring the properties of the charge, but they can no longer reproduce the old parachute for the bomb, they tried to replace it with a JDAM analogue, but this product dies from radiation (the parachute didn’t care about this radiation).
    1. -1
      4 November 2019 02: 47
      With the exception of the MiG-29, all this, to put it mildly, is not true. There was a problem with Mig, but as one of the American generals said back in the 80s: I hope we don’t have crews stupid enough to try to fly over the SA-10 system (NATO name for S-300). They understand the limits of their technique and train with them in mind. There are no invisible planes, but there are quite subtle ones.

      The B-2 is quite stealthy, although not invisible.
    2. -4
      4 November 2019 10: 27
      Quote: bk0010
      It suddenly became clear that the Mig-29 radar not only successfully sees the B-2, but even sees it against the background of the ground


      Doesn't the legend say at what distance the radar sees the B-2? This is how any radar sees any stealth.
      1. 0
        4 November 2019 11: 32
        Does not speak. But, apparently, no less than 25 km (due to the fact that the detection range did not impose restrictions on the use of old R-27s). Or maybe he confused it with something else: I’ve heard about it for a long time.
  52. 0
    4 November 2019 02: 03
    It can be retargeted in flight.

    This is what theoretically requires not just long-range strike aircraft, but precisely aircraft that are part of strategic nuclear forces

    Controversial statement.
    There are no advantages in this matter.
    During that time, while the bomber is in flight, you can drink tea or coffee, eat, read a newspaper with news from the nuclear front, take a nap for an hour and then, with a fresh mind, decide on a new target and give the command to launch a ballistic missile - and it will hit the newly determined target still earlier than the bomber.
    The same problem with strategic nuclear cruise missiles.
    And both have big problems with delivery reliability, unlike ballistic missiles, which are still much more difficult to shoot down.
    There is no point in dispersing bombers and lifting them into the air for a guaranteed nuclear response; SLBMs will do this much better.
    One could consider that strategic bombers are a relic of a time when there were no unreliable ICBMs and SLBMs, but they shouldn’t be destroyed. But the parties are developing new bombers.
    Again, nuclear bombs, which when struck against stationary objects look like an atavism and an anachronism.
    A nuclear cruise ship, or even better, a ballistic missile, will cope with this much better and faster.
    There can be one explanation for the existence of nuclear bombs in our time, in my opinion - they are intended to strike non-stationary objects, such as the rear of an advancing army, in order to undermine the pace of the offensive by destroying the rear.
    It is in this case that it makes sense to use bombs and further search for targets by the crew, for which the Americans have very advanced radars and so on.
    Otherwise, no one would put bombs on bombers; they would make do with cruise missiles.
    On the other hand, in this case it makes sense to strike with tactical charges rather than strategic ones.
    Moreover, the number of strategic charges is limited by the treaty, while the number of tactical charges is unlimited.
    Actually, the Americans are going to equip the new B-21s with adjustable nuclear bombs and cruise missiles, which suggests that they plan to use the new bombers to attack non-stationary targets, for example, mobile missile launchers.
    There is also an explanation for why bombers are still part of the triad
    Under the START III treaty, each deployed strategic bomber counts as one nuclear warhead [7]. The number of nuclear bombs and cruise missiles with a nuclear warhead that the deployed strategic bombers can carry is not taken into account.

    Features of the START-3 treaty.
    But China, for example, is not included in it, but has bombers.
  53. 0
    4 November 2019 02: 15
    I’m not sure, but I think that given the quantitative superiority of both our and American land- and underwater-based strategic nuclear warheads over air-based strategic nuclear warheads, the role of these flying prodigies comes down solely to patriotic flights over the Kremlin on red days of the calendar or to flights before the start of the final Super Bowl or NASCAR, or to demonstrate the flag abroad.
  54. +1
    4 November 2019 02: 56
    It is possible to praise the merits of “strategists”...and even, perhaps, necessary! But aren’t the arguments of opponents of strategic aviation as a modern weapon “worthy of discussion” as well...? And one more thing...Can’t the “advantages” of strategic bombers be realized in other projects? For example...: 1. "Burevestnik" with nuclear power plant; 2. Long-range bomber-drone... 3. By the way, it would be better (more expedient) to create a “multifunctional” aircraft that would be suitable in different “guises”. The “flying wing” design would be suitable not only for a “manned-unmanned” long-range bomber, but also for a basic patrol (anti-submarine...) aircraft; aircraft AWACS...electronic warfare carrier - radio repeater; loitering interceptor of manned "strategists", "global" reconnaissance drones (target designators), CD...
    1. AML
      +2
      4 November 2019 09: 16
      Tale is a lie, but a hint in it

    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  55. The comment was deleted.
  56. -1
    4 November 2019 09: 31
    He sorted out the facts competently. Interesting questions raised. Interesting examples are given (excluding the confusion of B-1, B-1A, B-1B). In general, the meaning is clear. Even if we take strategic aviation separately, then, as a program for action, the article deserves careful study.

    The article does not pay attention to the fact that our strategists with nuclear weapons were turning the carousel towards Europe. For what purposes? Is this acceptable now? The issue of war with the Americans was considered, but Europe was completely left out of the review. The entire potential of nuclear weapons stationed in Europe is beyond the scope of the review. There is no substantive concentration on what forces will carry out the first strike - from the article one gets the impression that the Americans will fight only by planes without interacting with other branches of the military, including ground forces. A damp article - interesting questions are raised, but in isolation from the full model.

    Adaptation of the B-52 strategy to Russian standards is unlikely. I believe that it makes no sense to even compare these strategies. Or rather, I would break it down into 2 tasks: countering the American first-strike air strategy and creating your own strategies for retaliatory and counter-strikes. I think this will be different from the conclusions presented in this article.
  57. -3
    4 November 2019 09: 45
    Quote: bk0010
    Add my 5 cents
    1) The air component of the triad is needed because the means to counter it are different from the means to counter ground-based ICBMs and SSBNs. Google about all sorts of Nikes, the Norad line, etc. If the bombers were removed, they could ditch all this bullshit and free up a ton of money.

    2) The Tu-160 was taught to bomb, but not in the USSR, but in the Russian Federation and with conventional bombs. I don’t remember how it all ended.

    3)
    Quote: About the Tu-160
    an airplane's airframe allows more than the people flying it can do

    I heard that, on the contrary, the Tu-160 airframe is overweight and not strong enough (which is why the terrain following mode is not suitable for it, even if you add a radar and modify the avionics).

    4)
    Quote: About the B-2
    but what is added is a significantly, several times smaller detection range of such an aircraft by radar of any type, except long-wave, which is unsuitable for missile guidance.

    It’s even more fun here: in the early 90s, Germany united and the Bundeswehr got Mig-29s. It suddenly became clear that the Mig-29 radar not only successfully sees the B-2, but sees it even against the background of the earth (moreover, the Mig-29 radar, not the only and not the main means of detection, also has some pretty good optics). There was a big scandal in narrow circles and the B-2 series was abruptly canceled (although the Americans tried to finish invisibility in episode 30, but I didn’t hear about the results).

    5)
    The United States is increasing the accuracy of nuclear bombs, while simultaneously reducing the detonation power, this applies to both types of bombs, the B-63 and B-83.

    I heard an opinion that both of them are caused by the fact that they “scraped the polymers”: they not only have problems with restoring the properties of the charge, but they can no longer reproduce the old parachute for the bomb, they tried to replace it with a JDAM analogue, but this product dies from radiation (the parachute didn’t care about this radiation).

    I agree. The article is damp.
    There are many facts beyond the usual media.
  58. +6
    4 November 2019 13: 20
    I don't agree with the article.
    I consider the concept of using free-falling ammunition to be outdated and even harmful for our strategic aviation. Yes, the United States continues to develop this direction, but this development is like a duck: above the water there is calm and confidence, and under the water there is feverish pawing in order to turn ordinary bombs into missiles. Because it’s obvious: in the event of a war with a technologically advanced enemy, the strategist’s chance of entering the bomb drop zone is almost zero. Strategists have a goal that they will shoot down in every possible way, including airborne nuclear explosions. Even an attempt to approach the distance of dropping a bomb will be regarded as an incident belli for a retaliatory missile strike. Moreover, although long-wave radar does not allow missiles to be guided, it will show the fact that bombers are approaching Russia. This will entail a retaliatory nuclear missile strike. And not in Europe, but in “decision-making centers,” that is, in the United States. That is, the very attempt to use stratobombers is already becoming meaningless.

    The author is certainly right that the ideal option is the ability to retarget ammunition at any phase of its flight. But this is not a question of the carrier aircraft. This is a matter of communication systems. If you have a system for instantly relaying a radio signal to anywhere in the world, you will have the opportunity to redirect the CD after launch. And if there is no such system, then you won’t be able to give an order to the plane.

    Moreover, Russia has the opportunity to base bombers in Canada or Mexico, as close to the United States as they can do from Lithuania or Poland. I want to remind you how much the “bomb” concept costs the United States. It is for the sake of its implementation that they maintain dozens of air bases around the world, and without this basing system, the “bomb” doctrine is not implementable at all.
    Russia has neither the funds nor the number of allies to implement such a concept of strategic aviation. Even if Russia creates a global military satellite communications system, the United States, by placing interceptor bases in Asia, Europe and the BV, will be able to effectively intercept our bomb carriers in all directions except the polar one. And this direction is blocked by powerful air defense/missile defense of the USA and... Canada. The United States has been developing a bomb doctrine for strategic aviation for decades and knows very well how to counter it.
    Therefore, the only way to use stratobombers for Russia remains a salvo of long-range missiles from areas inaccessible to US and NATO interceptors.
    The Russian bombers themselves will perform the function of a highly mobile strike complex that is not available for the first disarming strike.
  59. -3
    4 November 2019 13: 51
    Starting the production of bombers now is as irrational for Russia as the production of aircraft carriers. Doomed to fail for financial reasons.
    We need to focus on two types of aircraft: Su-57 and Su-35. Make several hundred of them. They will provide defensive potential in a strategic conflict and offensive potential in a local one.
    Strategic deterrence and retaliation will be fully provided by the Yars and Tolpol-M ICBMs. Nothing more is needed.
    1. +3
      4 November 2019 23: 30
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Starting the production of bombers now is as irrational for Russia as the production of aircraft carriers. Doomed to fail for financial reasons.
      We need to focus on two types of aircraft: Su-57 and Su-35. Make several hundred of them. They will provide defensive potential in a strategic conflict and offensive potential in a local one.
      Strategic deterrence and retaliation will be fully provided by the Yars and Tolpol-M ICBMs. Nothing more is needed.


      I partly agree. But it depends on what you mean by “bomber”. If the classic concept, focused on bombs, yes, there is no point. But a large missile-carrying aircraft, on the contrary, is needed no less than fighters.
      Well, I also don’t agree with the concentration on dry foods.
  60. +5
    4 November 2019 14: 38
    What are you all about the USA?, and where is NATO? How many theaters of operations do they have? - Russia and China. And there are so many bases with a GDP of 3 km! How many do we have? Only those on duty in the air will survive the impact. There is not enough kerosene to fly bombs even to England and return (and where to return?) From here - only X-102. Then, in the European theater of operations, everyone can carry aerial bombs: Eurofighter, Grippen, F-16, etc. - what about them? And in Europe we have Tu-22, Su-34, but what about them? Our strategists go to the Arctic and the Far East, launches from there, and lands there at polar and Far Eastern airfields or with a parachute in designated areas. The fact that there are no exercises being carried out, well, are you getting excited, don’t you read the newspapers? - they go on constantly. But the Petrel (which you forgot about) is that second strike cleaner. And who told you that Deinekin overcame supersonic sound on a B-1 50 meters above the ground? - laughter! Well, think for yourself who would give it to him, but he himself is not a m×××k! This is a complex topic. Not for you.
    1. +5
      4 November 2019 17: 47
      It feels like the article was written by a teenager who had read articles on Wikipedia... But a teenager with enviable Perseverance...
  61. +5
    4 November 2019 16: 20
    I read that our strategic nuclear forces include, in the author’s opinion, “several hundred nuclear warheads, including bombs” - I stopped reading and I don’t advise you. A man writes about something he has no idea about. The error is practically an order of magnitude.

    Well, it’s also funny about the lack of training in using nuclear weapons. And in tactics, he also “floats”, like a match in a basin of water.

    The ability to retarget a missile launcher in flight has been implemented and tested even in Syria, not only in the flight of a bomber, but also in the flight of the missile itself, EMNIP, too. In short, a person needs to read more and sensible materials, and think less
  62. +4
    4 November 2019 17: 30
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    You are wrong in everything if you do not go deep.

    Calculate the nuclear weapons assigned to the strategic nuclear forces according to START-3, for example

    You are wrong in EVERYTHING! Read what BC the planes carry YES! It is simply useless to argue with you, absolute zero in YES.
  63. +4
    4 November 2019 17: 47
    Timokhin in his repertoire. The only question is that the states have 70 52x 20 b2 and a bunch of other things like 70 b1b. And unfortunately, that 95 will not be able to break through air defense flying over the sea due to the wild EPR, but most importantly due to the presence of naval groups with drilling aircraft over the same sea. And the launch of a series of marine drones will allow us to push back the limits of detection and interception to any point in the ocean
    So there are only missile options and air duty as it was during the alliance. But then 60, 95 and 18 swans will not have enough resources.
  64. +2
    4 November 2019 17: 55
    If everything about the US nuclear nuclear forces is presented logically and completely, then when transferred to our nuclear nuclear forces, questions arise. Will our strategists be able to bomb the United States with free-falling bombs and aeroballistic missiles? Without engaging the enemy air force in combat, this seems unlikely. The American (NATO) Air Force can engage our Air Force in battle so that the strategists can slip in deeper. How should we connect the US Air Force over the USA?
    Europe or China? But here, by and large, strategists are not needed - carriers of tactical nuclear weapons can replace them.
    The only thing in which I see the meaning of the ASNF in our country is the diversion of US Air Force forces to the air defense of the US itself.
  65. +2
    4 November 2019 18: 02
    The author mixed “horses and people” together. Nobody disputes that there are disadvantages. But it’s amateurish to argue and select photographs....
  66. +2
    4 November 2019 18: 04
    Quote: tesser
    In reality, the Russian Federation has a very large concentration of population, much more than in the States.

    What nonsense? Read the sources, and what is the concentration of the US population on the coast....
    1. -1
      4 November 2019 18: 30
      Quote: Alex1973
      Read the sources, and what is the concentration of the US population on the coast....

      Low.

      Greater LA, which is 5% of the US population, is 4 times larger in area than Moscow and its surrounding area, which is 15% of the Russian population. American cities are large even by 1Mt standards. Plus, the development is more favorable for civil defense than in Russia. The urbanized area of ​​San Francisco - San Diego, which from Russia seems like one city, is longer than from Moscow to Saratov.
      1. 0
        4 November 2019 18: 34
        Are there any arguments besides Moscow?
        1. +2
          4 November 2019 19: 11
          Density population and its concentration in urbanized areas - different things.
          In the Russian Federation there are 37 cities larger than 500k, exactly the same as in the USA. Their shares in the total population in the Russian Federation are much higher, taking into account the difference in the total population.
          1. +2
            4 November 2019 21: 52
            In America, much more of the population lives in one-story houses, compared to Russia, where the main type of housing is five-story or nine-story panel buildings. An American, the owner of a wooden house, will be told on television to open an air defense gap in his yard. The air raid alarm sounded: within a minute he jumped into the gap and that was it. No one will be able to escape from a Russian five- or nine-story building.
            1. -1
              4 November 2019 23: 23
              Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
              In America, much more of the population lives in one-story houses, compared to Russia, where the main type of housing is five-story or nine-story panel buildings. An American, the owner of a wooden house, will be told on television to open an air defense gap in his yard. The air raid alarm sounded: within a minute he jumped into the gap and that was it. No one will be able to escape from a Russian five- or nine-story building.


              It doesn't matter at all. The consequences of a Russian nuclear strike on the United States will be such that the living will envy the dead. Just imagine the scale of the financial disaster that followed the collapse of the New York Stock Exchange. Even if one-story America survives, it will quickly destroy itself in the pursuit of food and medicine.
        2. -2
          4 November 2019 19: 19
          And what is your population density? Russia is a lifeless desert, people live in ten to twenty oases where there is sewage. Only one of them has road markings as a norm of life.
    2. 0
      5 November 2019 15: 54
      Miracle, take any American city, put on a map the area of ​​effect of the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion and estimate what part of its territory remains completely unaffected by one warhead or bomb.
      Their people are dispersed within their agglomerations, and the population density within city limits in many cities is several times lower than ours.

      In St. Petersburg the population density is 3800 people per sq. km, in Los Angeles it is 2900. Where will one combat unit kill more people?

      And then there are cities of 500-600 thousand, the difference there is simply amazing.

      More than 11% of the population of the Russian Federation lives in Moscow alone and its environs, and so much has been brought there that even insects will die if it starts.
      1. +1
        5 November 2019 22: 05
        In St. Petersburg the population density is 3800 people per sq. km, in Los Angeles it is 2900. Where will one combat unit kill more people?
        It’s not at all a fact that in St. Petersburg: the USA is full of houses made of “shit and sticks”, which are useless (and even harmful) as protection against damaging factors.
      2. 5-9
        0
        6 November 2019 13: 03
        You should also know that no one will kill people by burning residential areas (at the same time, the radius of destruction in a stone multi-storey city is several times smaller than the radius of destruction of plywood shacks) - it wouldn’t cost you anything :))))
        1. 0
          6 November 2019 20: 35
          Why so much optimism? A couple more ridiculous events and the question will not be a question of probability, but of the timing of the start.
  67. 0
    4 November 2019 18: 20
    Quote: okko077
    Flying TU-22M3 and combat-ready TU-22M3 are so different things that it’s even hard for you to imagine, judging by your unreasonable language.

    It's hard for you to imagine! Do you have anything to say on the merits of the issue and not from open sources? The links you provided are nonsense for the average person and misleading opponents!
  68. 0
    4 November 2019 18: 44
    Quote: tesser
    Greater LA, which is 5% of the US population, is 4 times larger in area than Moscow and its surrounding area, which is 15% of the Russian population.

    The area is 2 times smaller than Moscow, the population is approximately 4 million, the area is 1390 sq. km, Moscow is approximately 12.6 million. The area is 4900 sq. km. Apart from Moscow, Russia no longer has a population density even close to this...
    1. -4
      5 November 2019 00: 40
      Is your "reply" button not working? I only see your posts by chance.

      In the case of Moscow, read more carefully, you mixed up the words “area” and “density” in Wiki. The density in Moscow is twice as high. Secondly, I talked about the Moscow agglomeration and the big LA.
  69. +3
    4 November 2019 19: 05
    Quote: Something
    Quote: Avior
    In the case of the B-2 goes away ... "supersonic" (which ... "catches up" an additional EPR ...), but is added ... a shorter detection range ....

    Avior, the proposal is not only stylistically incorrect, but also physically - supersonic does not have any effect on the image intensifier tube (ESR) of the aircraft, in a figurative sense it is not meant.

    Maybe the author got it wrong and it’s a matter of a shock wave that is formed in supersonic conditions or in turbulent flows, which makes it possible to indirectly detect an aircraft? I'm not a pro, this is just my logical reasoning. correct me if I'm wrong
  70. +1
    4 November 2019 19: 27
    Quote: tesser
    And what is your population density? Russia is a lifeless desert, people live in ten to twenty oases where there is sewage. Only one of them has road markings as a norm of life.

    Have you ever been to Russia? What if only regional and regional centers are over 80? Do you have enough sewerage? Not from Ukraine?
  71. 0
    4 November 2019 19: 40
    Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
    Population density and its concentration in urban areas are two different things.
    In the Russian Federation there are 37 cities larger than 500k, exactly the same as in the USA. Their shares in the total population in the Russian Federation are much higher, taking into account the difference in the total population.

    There are 314 cities in the USA with a population of over 100 thousand, we...
    In total, there are 171 cities in Russia with a population of more than 100 thousand people. Of these: 15 cities with a population of over a million; 22 cities with a population from 500 thousand to 1 million people; 41 cities with a population from 250 thousand to 500 thousand people; 93 cities with a population from 100 thousand to 250 thousand as of January 1, 2019
    1. 0
      4 November 2019 19: 50
      If you haven't noticed, you confirm my words:

      1) there are more million-plus cities in the Russian Federation than in the USA;
      2) the same number of cities with a population >500k
      3) there are much fewer cities with a population of 100-500k.

      There can be only one conclusion from these premises: the population in the Russian Federation is settled much more concentrated than in the United States.
      1. -3
        4 November 2019 21: 41
        Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
        2) the same number of cities with a population >500k

        According to Wiki, there is one less in the States))
    2. 0
      4 November 2019 21: 39
      Urbanization in the applied aspect of interest to you was discussed in the thread here: https://topwar.ru/130127-rf-protiv-nato-rol-avianoscev-v-yadernom-konflikte.html

      Quote: Alex1973
      Have you ever been to Russia? What if only regional and regional centers are over 80?

      Yes, and I have been to some of them. Let's say, number 21 on the list in the Russian Federation is Barnaul, beloved by many, Altai Territory. Boston ranks in the same place on the American list. Do you understand what I am talking about?

      Returning to arithmetic. 171 Russian cities 100K+ - that's 76 million people, 50% of the population. There are 313 100K+ cities in the USA - that's only 89 million people, a little more than a quarter of the population. 15 million people, 33,6% of the population, live in 23 Russian million-plus cities. In the USA there are only 10 million people (if we take official statistics), in which only 26 million people live, 8% of the population (and the top 15 are 30,5 million, this is less than in Russia, with a 2+ larger population).

      Russia is a country of human beings. America is a country of gigantic urbanized spaces consisting of small settlements. Dr. House, if you've heard of it, worked at Princeton-Plainsboro Hospital, that is, a hospital serving two cities with populations of 28 thousand and 23 thousand people, respectively. The real best hospital in the USA (and the world), Mayo, is located in Rochester, Minnesota, with a population of 100 thousand, by the way, Rochester in area (150 sq. km) is comparable to Tula, with a population of half a million.

      Live now with this.
  72. 0
    4 November 2019 21: 25
    Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
    If you haven't noticed, you confirm my words:

    1) there are more million-plus cities in the Russian Federation than in the USA;
    2) the same number of cities with a population >500k
    3) there are much fewer cities with a population of 100-500k.

    There can be only one conclusion from these premises: the population in the Russian Federation is settled much more concentrated than in the United States.

    Are you okay with arithmetic? At the end of 2018, according to data from Wikipedia, there were 10 cities in the United States with a population of more than 1 million people:

    New York;
    San Diego;
    Los Angeles;
    Chicago;
    Houston;
    Dallas;
    Phoenix;
    San Antonio;
    Philadelphia;
    San Jose.
    Count the population and territory. And the population in our 15 cities, and in theirs in 10... and the total area of ​​the Russian Federation and the FSA
    1. 0
      4 November 2019 21: 36
      Well, let's check the arithmetic since you are so stubborn. In the Russian Federation, there are about 25% of the total population, in USA - about 10%.

      I’ll say more: the total population of American millionaires lessthan Russian ones. 33,6 million people against 26,6 millions.
      What else would you like to calculate?
  73. 0
    4 November 2019 22: 13
    Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
    I will say more: the total population of American millionaires is smaller than that of Russia. 33,6 million people versus 26,6 million.
    What else would you like to calculate?
    Reply

    Where did you count 33.6? Explain with numbers! Are we only counting millionaires?
    1. 0
      4 November 2019 23: 15
      33.6 million population of million-plus cities in the Russian Federation - according to Wiki.

      It is important to note here that this is within the administrative boundaries of the cities themselves, that is, for example, living 5 minutes from the metro, I am not included in these statistics.

      If we don’t count the population of millions, then in absolute numbers the population of American cities with a population > 100k is greater than that of similar Russian ones. But their share relative to the total population of the country in the United States is significantly lower; The American population is more evenly spread across the country.

      My main conclusion here is that Khrushchev’s logic in terms of possible losses from a counter-value nuclear strike, even if it worked during the development of virgin lands, now it does not.
      1. +6
        5 November 2019 00: 57
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas

        Population of 60 US metropolitan areas as of 2018:
        New York - 20 million
        Los Angeles - 13 million
        Chicago - 10 million
        San Francisco - 8 million
        Houston - 7 million
        Dallas - 6 million
        Washington - 6 million
        Miami - 6 million
        Philadelphia - 6 million
        Atlanta - 6 million
        Boston - 5 million
        Phoenix - 5 million
        Riverside - 5 million
        Detroit - 4 million
        Seattle - 4 million
        San Diego - 3 million
        Minneapolis - 3 million
        Tampa - 3 million
        Denver - 3 million
        St. Louis - 3 million
        Baltimore - 3 million
        Orlando - 2 million
        Charlotte - 2 million
        San Antonio - 2 million
        Portland - 2 million
        Sacramento - 2 million
        Pittsburgh - 2 million
        Las Vegas - 2 million
        Cincinnati - 2 million
        Austin - 2 million
        Kansas City - 2 million
        Columbus - 2 million
        Cleveland - 2 million
        Indianapolis - 2 million
        San Jose - 2 million
        Nashville - 2 million
        million agglomerations - 21 million.
        Total: 180 million (2/3 of the US population)

        Performance characteristics of the combat monoblock ICBM "Sarmat" / warhead of the NPA "Poseidon":
        capacity - 100 Mtn
        diameter of the zone of destruction of buildings and structures - 72 km
        diameter of the zone of fires and fatal burns - 150 km
        1. -1
          5 November 2019 01: 05
          The operator, as always, is inimitable.

          > urban agglomerations
          > ICBM "Sarmat" / warhead of the NPA "Poseidon"
          > capacity - 100 Mtn

          It’s good at least for agglomerations, not regional centers; Sarmat, not R-7; 100MT, not 200.
          1. -5
            5 November 2019 01: 32
            Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
            The operator, as always, is inimitable.

            It's true. And as always, he is an alternative.

            100 Mt is Kuzka’s mother weighing 26 tons. Sarmat, according to RIA Novosti, to put it mildly, not prone to modesty, takes 10 tons. In the standard, this is considered to be 10x0,75 Mt, with breeding and all that.
            With an explosion of 100 Mt at the optimal height, the radius of fires is 58 km, glass-breaking (1 psi) - 92 km, wall-breaking (5psi) - 33 km. If you blow up the notorious Poseidon at the entrance to New York Harbor, the result will be completely unconvincing, not even enough for Manhattan. In general, an explosion below ground level, even 20 meters, severely reduces all damaging factors.
            1. +2
              5 November 2019 02: 16
              Quote: tesser
              100 Mt is Kuzka’s mother weighing 26 tons.

              Dear, the bomb, nicknamed “Kuzka’s Mother,” had a power of 58,6 Mt. What 100 Mt, can you tell me?
              Quote: tesser
              Sarmat, according to RIA Novosti, to put it mildly, not prone to modesty, takes 10 tons. In the standard, this is considered to be 10x0,75 Mt, with breeding and all that.

              750 kT, dear, for a city like New York, for example, for the eyes, so that no stone would be left unturned, and most of the population would die either immediately or after some time.
              Quote: tesser
              With an explosion of 100 Mt at the optimal height, the radius of fires is 58 km

              You are an even bigger amateur than the author of the article..
              Here are data on tests of a 58 Mt bomb, which was originally intended to be a 100 Mt bomb...
              However, the detonation of ammunition of this design was almost guaranteed to lead to significant radioactive contamination of the test site, so they decided to abandon the third stage. The uranium contained in it was replaced by lead.

              Now, regarding the power of the charge... nominally it was 58 Mt, but since the explosion was carried out at an altitude of about 4 km, its strength turned out to be much greater than calculated...
              According to some sources, the explosion of the Tsar Bomba was much more powerful than planned (58,6 or even 75 megatons).

              By the way, there is an opinion that because of these tests, states stopped testing charges with nuclear warheads by air detonation.
              After the explosion, a fireball with a diameter of more than nine kilometers was formed, the nuclear mushroom reached a height of 67 km, and the diameter of its “cap” was 97 km. The light radiation could cause burns at a distance of 100 km, and the sound wave reached Dikson Island, located 800 km east of Novaya Zemlya. The seismic wave generated by the explosion circled the globe three times. However, the tests did not lead to significant environmental pollution. Scientists landed at the epicenter two hours after the explosion.

              What if instead of uranium and lead there was COBALT, as is planned to be done at Poseidon?
              The explosion of A602 created a zone of complete destruction equal in area to the territory of Paris,

              Quote: tesser
              If you blow up the notorious Poseidon at the entrance to New York Harbor, the result will be completely unconvincing, not even enough for Manhattan.

              You should at least understand the essence of the creation of Poseidon before writing nonsense here...
              The main destructive element of Poseidon is not a power of 2 Mt, but a COBALT charge shell, which is guaranteed to turn the same New York and its suburbs into a contaminated territory for years, depending on which one is used.
              You will check out the challenges in Bikini Atoll called Crossroads. And especially pay attention not to the destructive factor of the charge of 120 Kt, but to the moment of INFECTION.
              1. -2
                5 November 2019 20: 12
                Quote: NEXUS
                had a capacity of 58,6 Mt.

                Under testing, with lead sheath. 100 Mt is the design power when the uranium shell is involved in the reaction.
                Quote: NEXUS
                750 kT, dear, for a city like New York for example

                800 Kt with well-organized civil defense means 1,5 million dead in an explosion in the center of New York and 0,6 million dead in an explosion in the center of LA
                Quote: NEXUS
                You are an even bigger amateur than the author of the article..

                In nuclear tests? I don’t know whether it’s more or not, but I’m not even an amateur, but I’m a little curious. What did you want to say? About the radius of burns, which is higher than the radius of fires?
                Quote: NEXUS
                since the explosion was carried out at an altitude of about 4 km, its strength turned out to be much greater than calculated...

                It looks as if the TNT equivalent of your device depends on the height of the detonation.
                Quote: NEXUS
                would there be COBALT, as is planned for Poseidon?

                Planned by whom? The late General Negin?
                Quote: NEXUS
                You should at least understand the essence of the creation of Poseidon before writing nonsense here...
                The main destructive element of Poseidon is not the power of 2 Mt, but the COBALT shell of the charge,

                The main striking element of Poseidon is the power of the Operator's imagination. He wrote down his ideas, I checked them with a ruler on the map. But you have your own Poseidon, cobalt, I understand.
        2. -1
          5 November 2019 14: 18
          Now wake up and stop reading the yellow press, 1000 mtn, ha maybe a gigaton, standard 400 kiloton, monoblock 25 mtn and no one will shoot at cities with it, idiots, unlike... no, this is for rare, especially fortified targets, which, two and miscalculated, smart guy.
        3. 0
          5 November 2019 20: 48
          Quote: Operator
          Total: 180 million (2/3 of the US population)


          Now it is obvious that the Operator lives in an alternative Universe. Because in our Universe the population of the USA is 327 million.
          1. -3
            5 November 2019 20: 55
            Nashville - 2 million
            million agglomerations - 21 million.
            Total: 180 million (2/3 of the US population)

            What kind of agglomeration is this?
            Does your friend also correct texts if necessary?)
  74. 0
    4 November 2019 22: 17
    Quote: tesser
    Returning to arithmetic. 171 Russian cities 100K+ - that's 76 million people, 50% of the population.

    From here on in more detail, very interesting....
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. 0
        4 November 2019 23: 28
        I immediately recognized you as a cherry nine. Where can I read you if there’s a break here again?
        1. 0
          4 November 2019 23: 39
          If this is addressed to me, then I will say it. Not everyone can constantly sit idle on the Internet and be smart, sometimes you need to get things done. But in fact.... the meaning of the topic is lost, the author is an amateur (to put it mildly), plus or minus 10 BG little things, and everyone is equal, but in the ground...
          1. 0
            5 November 2019 01: 00
            See my comment above from 00:57
  75. 0
    4 November 2019 22: 19
    Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
    3) there are much fewer cities with a population of 100-500k.

    2 times more cities in the USA....
  76. 0
    4 November 2019 23: 28
    Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
    It is important to note here that this is within the administrative boundaries of the cities themselves, that is, for example, living 5 minutes from the metro, I am not included in these statistics.

    Tell me where is this place? Seriously, very interesting....
    1. 0
      4 November 2019 23: 48
      Metro Devyatkino, Vsevolozhsky district, Leningrad region. The same trick with the ears with the Rybatskoye metro station.
  77. 0
    4 November 2019 23: 29
    Quote: tesser
    For example, according to the Times Higher Education rating, 5 of the 10 best Russian universities are Moscow (Novosib, Tomsk, Kazan, and St. Petersburg one each), half of them are ranked 189-500, the rest are below 500. According to the Forbes rating, 2 top ten universities are not located in Moscow.

    Will we measure everything by FSA ratings? But we don’t have them in our ratings at all, so what?
    1. -2
      5 November 2019 00: 20
      Quote: Alex1973
      Will we measure everything by FSA ratings?

      Are you talking about Times Higher Education? These are the British. If you take the rating of bearded loyalists from the Expert holding (the office of Putin’s new adviser, Mr. Fadeev), then the top ten is almost the same, only Moscow is 7 out of 10, Kazan is in the second ten.
      If you are confused by the 189th number of Moscow State University among the British (and only 5 universities in the first 500, the small Netherlands has 7 in the first hundred), take Shanghai (there, bros, everything should be as it should be). The same 8 out of 10 are Americans (in a different order), 2 out of 3 first, 16 out of 20. Moscow State University is higher than the British, 96th place, but even there it is much inferior, for example, to the University of Helsinki.

      But the idea was not to crumble the loaf for the Ministry of Education and Science. The point is that Americanness and greatness are spread across America in a relatively even layer. In Russia one cannot even dream of anything like this.
  78. 0
    4 November 2019 23: 57
    Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
    Metro Devyatkino, Vsevolozhsky district, Leningrad region. The same trick with the ears with the Rybatskoye metro station.

    What's the catch? Metro within the borders of St. Petersburg? If not, then there are no questions.
    1. 0
      5 November 2019 00: 00
      But the metro can be installed anywhere... and what's the point?
  79. -2
    5 November 2019 00: 48
    It was interesting to read smile
    I think our bombers don’t have the task of finishing off anyone in the USA, we don’t have infrastructure over the hill, we don’t have a tanker fleet, a flight to the USA is a one-way flight! I think our bombers have a different task: they must attack targets that cannot be destroyed by ICBMs, which are due to the flight path of the ICBM warheads, for example, the US base on Diego Garcia, either in Turkey or in Alaska, not too far, or in bases in satellite countries, or actually destroy the AUG somewhere, i.e. destroy targets that cannot be hit by ICBMs!
    The fact that the Yankees can escape in a single file from a missile attack is, of course, handsome! I hope ours can do something like this too
    Air defense has come a long way since the 80s, before it shot down planes, now missiles and even bombs! Missiles fired by the B52 to destroy air defense can be shot down, a huge target at an altitude of 500 meters, I think no reb can save him, and he himself will feel in the range of the rab. I have my doubts about bombs. negative
    1. 0
      5 November 2019 14: 20
      ICBMs and aviation have also jumped forward quite well since the 80s, so what next?
      1. -2
        5 November 2019 18: 31
        Maybe B2 jumped, but where did B52, Tu95, Tu160 jump? I don’t have the B2, are you suggesting using the Tu160 instead of the KR, with bombs to advantage, to break through at an altitude of 300m, for example in Europe? Or is it even more fun on Tu95!? It seems to me more reliable
  80. +1
    5 November 2019 08: 36
    There are primary factors and there are secondary ones. The missile is cheap, intercepted with difficulty, or rather not at all, has combat readiness almost at the level of launch on command 24/7, can be protected by a silo, or moved in space on a self-propelled launcher. These are primary factors, and they are more important than the fact that the Tu-160, after an 8-hour flight to New York, can be redirected to Miami.
  81. +1
    5 November 2019 09: 54
    The author has very little understanding of the topic, and in some places the author writes outright nonsense. To be clear, here is a quote:
    Upon returning to Russia, General Deinekin himself had to admit that our combat pilots also do not fly as Americans do - the latter pilot their heavy vehicles much bolder than we do, and the maneuvers that they have in the combat and flight training program , we often simply banned by governing documents.
    End of quote.
    Now, attention, question:
    What maneuvers do the pilots of the American Strategic Command perform in their aircraft that ours cannot perform on the Tu-22M, Tu-95MS and Tu-160?
  82. -1
    5 November 2019 11: 15
    Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
    regional centers

    “Be around, but don’t give in” (C) bully
    1. 0
      6 November 2019 00: 27
      Here the entire site is aware of your life attitudes.
  83. 0
    5 November 2019 11: 17
    Isn’t it possible for the X101(102) to be retargeted in flight, the Ministry of Defense stated the same thing - this time. Free-falling nuclear bombs = a lost war (in the sense that the first sudden counter-force strike has passed, the air defense areas have been destroyed and only then do the bombs have a chance), isn’t that so?
  84. +1
    5 November 2019 19: 41
    The article is excellent. In my opinion, it explains very well the difference between truly combat-ready strategic aviation and operatic aviation.

    Regarding the need for air bombs. Let's say the B-52 of the late 80s carried eight B-83 bombs, six SREM-A and six SREM-B. The power of the SREM is 17 kt, but can be switched to 210 kt. In my opinion, everything is extremely logical. Why destroy S-300 divisions with 210-kiloton weapons on the border of the USSR? Or maybe we will have to advance on this territory. The power of the B-83 is 1,2 Mt. Just destroy Leningrad with a guarantee. Let's say there is a war between the USA and the USSR. Let us remember: no one is allowed to fire ICBMs due to the guarantee of mutual destruction. Let's assume that all NATO members in Europe were killed by the "Points". Soviet troops are successfully advancing through radioactive rubble. And then they report to Gorbachev that a B-52 is roaming in the Finnish sky near our borders, and in the distance there are also U-2s and RC-135s. Launch ICBMs? Should everyone die? Or maybe it will still work out that way. Take him under escort and shoot him down from the S-300s of the Leningrad Military District, Gorbachev commands. And they report to him, only the division turned the radars, the 52nd first jammed, and then received the coordinates from the RC-135 and destroyed our division with the SREM-B. And you are his fighters, advises Gorbachev. Again a report - a squadron of Su-27s was destroyed by the explosion of an air-to-air missile SREM-A. And the 52nd is already over Vyborg. Bach 200 kt - no more Vyborg. Should I launch ICBMs now? It’s a pity for Vyborg, but everyone can’t die because of Vyborg alone. And the enemy is already above Kronstadt. Bach 200 kt. The city of military glory of Kronstadt no longer exists. And then there was a call. Ronald Reagan on the line. “Hello, Michael, how a yu, haven’t they reported to you yet that my Bi-fifty-ty is now over Vasilyevsky Island? Look at your intelligence report about the B-83. We can do a megaton. We were only joking so far. Well, we will Continue on, Michael? Or will you give in? It's up to you to decide."

    Soviet strategic aviation cannot perform such a trick. X-55 - 200 kt. Too small for a big city. For air defense positions - too much. X-22 is one megaton, but it cannot reach America, not even Alaska. X-15 - 300 kt, exploding Patriot batteries in Europe is redundant. Then the trucks will not pass through the destruction zone, and the army units will be left without supplies. The Tu-95 and Tu-160 cannot drop bombs; bomb sights have been removed under the START Treaty.
    1. -2
      5 November 2019 21: 28
      You should write fantastic stories fellow
      Gorbachev passed everything without the B52 crying
      For the Patrits in Europe, we take the UAVs from the Houthis and knock out the air defense laughing Russian hackers upload porn into fighter software and pilots have no time for war, NATO is left without aviation tongue then calmly polite people explain to the leaders of Europe, and to each one separately, that it is better to be friends with Russia and not to fight drinks
    2. +2
      5 November 2019 22: 13
      Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
      Let us remember: no one is allowed to fire ICBMs due to the guarantee of mutual destruction.

      You have the wrong idea: with such a difference in industrial potential, in the event of a conflict with the United States, we simply need to launch a full-scale strike, not at mines, but at cities and factories. This will lead to the mutual nullification of industrial and demographic potential and it will be possible to fight some more. otherwise they will be crushed like Japan during WWII.
    3. 5-9
      0
      6 November 2019 13: 08
      It wouldn't be like this :)
      And then they report to Gorbachev that a B-52 is roaming in the Finnish sky near our borders - an S-200 with a special warhead is being launched, there are no B-52s or RC-135s. Should we start a war after this?

      With this approach/logic, I will either destroy or conquer the whole of America Tu-95 and X-55 :)
      1. 0
        6 November 2019 19: 59
        Quote: 5-9
        S-200 is launched with a special warhead


        The S-200, unlike the S-300, does not have radio command guidance, therefore, until there is a reliable lock, it simply will not fly anywhere. And every time, disrupt the capture with targeted interference and that’s it. Then, the S-200 is stationary. The enemy found out all the coordinates in peacetime during border overflights. If he is very tired of the S-200, then the B-52 descends below the horizon for this S-200, approaches 200 km and from there fires an SREM-B at it to a point with known coordinates.

        Quote: 5-9
        I will either destroy or conquer the whole of America Tu-95 with X-55 :)


        For a Tu-95 to get closer than 1000 km to the US borders is a deadly trick. It cannot fly at low altitude, it cannot create radio interference, it has a gun behind it instead of a jammer transmitter, it cannot shoot anything at the F-15, it cannot shoot at the Patriot. The Americans are lucky to have allies around them. From the north, Canada, where the radar network is. From the west, the United States is covered by a chain of radar stations in the Aleutian Islands. There is no way to break through between Greenland and Europe. The Tu-95’s destiny is to launch missiles from 2000 km; it is not intended for anything else. And it also doesn't have satellite communications. And HF communication with dots and dashes by ear - the enemies will quickly drown out, or even simply will not be able to establish due to atmospheric interference. Those. this is a really bad ersatz ICBM. What should Reagan do if he was informed about the mass launch of hundreds of X-55s? By pressing the red button on the diplomat, he has nothing more to lose. What if he was informed about one X-55? Give up? What's the point? Gorbachev won't cancel this flight anyway. Even if Gorbachev offers to surrender before the launch of the X-55, Gorbachev still has no connection with the Tu-95.
        1. 0
          6 November 2019 20: 40
          Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
          cannot cause radio interference
          This is definitely not the case.
          1. 0
            10 November 2019 05: 44
            Quote: bk0010
            cannot cause radio interference

            This is definitely not the case.


            Formally it’s not like that, but in fact, one might say, it’s almost impossible. Let's just look at the list of B-52 electronic warfare equipment from the late 80s:

            AN/ALQ - 172 - computerized multi-band active jamming station, uses phased array
            AN/ALR-20 - radiation warning station, recognizes up to 16 separate radars
            AN/ALR-46 - same for microwave
            AN/ALQ-155 - active jamming station in five subbands from 3 to 30 cm, uses 8 antennas
            AN/ALQ-122 - decoy generator for early warning stations, uses two antennas and two AN/ALT-16A transmitters
            AN/ALT-32 - noise jamming station
            AN/ALQ-153 - Doppler tail warning radar
            AN/ALE-20 - heat trap reset device
            AN/ALE-24 - dipoles

            Tu-95 looks very modest.
            Dipole shooting device
            Jamming station "Fasol" - producing noise interference for long-range radars 1,2 - 2 m. Extremely ineffective. If the Tu-95 had flown to Hanoi instead of the Americans, they would have been shot down in dense ranks long before the target.

            The first models of the Fasol station had a number of disadvantages: manual operation; insufficiently efficient use of station power, since all-round radars were suppressed only when the radiation pattern of its antenna was directed towards the jammer, and it was necessary to know its operating frequencies in advance; the inability to effectively counteract new air defense systems with monopulse and quasi-continuous radiation that have appeared in the arsenal of a potential enemy[1].
            The increase in the power of the Fasol and Buket stations led to the fact that their work began to disrupt their own radio communications between the aircraft in the group and ground points; led to disruption of the radio compasses and electrical systems. Also, microwave radiation from the stations had a negative impact on the health of crews and the operation of on-board equipment of aircraft[6].
            The Minister of Radio Industry of the USSR V.D. Kalmykov spoke about the Fasol station as follows: “The only thing they can do is interfere with the work of our ministry.”
            1. 0
              10 November 2019 15: 01
              Tu-95s are different. Now the Tu-95MS and Tu-142 are relevant. There will be no information on current electronic warfare systems for them until these weapons are removed from service. The beans are mid 60's. When a Su-15 intercepted a Tu-95 during a training exercise, the pilot reported that he was observing the plane visually, but the missiles were not locking onto the target, and suggested firing at the strategist from a cannon.
              1. 0
                11 November 2019 23: 12
                Quote: bk0010
                Now the Tu-95MS and Tu-142 are relevant. There will be no information on current electronic warfare systems for them until these weapons are removed from service.


                Fair.

                Quote: bk0010
                When a Su-15 intercepted a Tu-95 during an exercise, the pilot reported that he was observing the plane visually, but the missiles did not lock on to the target,


                "Beans" operates in the meter range. And the fighter's radar is in millimeter wave. This case was most likely caused by a malfunction in the Su-15's radar.
                1. 0
                  30 November 2019 13: 19
                  Fighter radar is in centimeter. The most massive is 3cm.
        2. 5-9
          0
          7 November 2019 09: 41
          I don’t want to discuss rivets and buttons (although here you are almost completely wrong), it’s just that you wrote a classic crazy scenario of “Sudden and Complete Defeat of the Motherland by Enemies” from the entornets, which include 2 required sections:
          1. The vile and insidious Enemy, right at the threshold of the Motherland, gathers Countless Hordes with the help of magic... because in reality today he does not have that many in his ranks at all and in real life, much smaller groups gathered for six months.
          2. All this time, the Motherland has been sleeping in cabbage shafts, not noticing at all the six-month gatherings of the Countless Hordes.
          3. At the very last moment, the Motherland begins to see the light, but a pregnant 9th grader breaks into the Supreme Political Leadership, who doubts and is not sure of the intentions of the Insidious Enemy, and when she becomes sure, she hopes that everything will resolve and does not want war...

          In this way, I will draw you the capture of Alaska and California by the New Year 2020 without any problems!
  85. 0
    6 November 2019 10: 38
    A plus article. But for Russia it doesn’t matter whether the USA, or China, or Zimbabwe attacks us, or doesn’t attack us. The old principle is to forecast for yourself the worst case scenario, for the enemy the best case scenario. WE SHOULD ALWAYS BE PREPARED FOR WAR - with America, China, aliens. If you want peace, prepare for war!
  86. 5-9
    0
    6 November 2019 12: 53
    Holy shit, an extensive footcloth explaining why losing modern cruise missiles (AGM-129) and making the most expensive planes in the world (B-2) fly with cast-iron nuclear bonnets is good... for this, the author even went back into the distant past to tell how it was good and correct to fly with cast iron nuclear bonnets 60 and 30 years ago...

    Take away all the UASPs from our aviation, machine guns and guns too!!!! You can always stop your hand...

    I haven't read such nonsense for a long time, oh, it's been a long time...
    1. 5-9
      0
      6 November 2019 13: 12
      They told the Congress in the 80s about nonsense that was superior in intensity to Congress in the 2s (about B-2019s invisibly plowing the skies over the Bryansk forests, as if they were destroying Poplars in forest clearings with cast iron cores) ... but they wanted to cut money that was simply incredible for the Air Force at that time (i.e. .the motivation of the generators of this nonsense was prohibitive), and what “stealth” actually was was not clear, so the warmed-up congressmen melted and clapped their hands.... but so that in XNUMX, in the interests of graphomania, to sculpt such a thing....
      1. -2
        6 November 2019 20: 39
        Quote: 5-9
        B-2 invisibly plowing the skies over the Bryansk forests,


        And with the B-2 the story will be like this. Our days. The Americans decided seriously and without fools to return Crimea to Ukraine. They gave their Air Force the task of killing Putin, within a week. They equipped, prepared one B-2 and secretly transferred it to Diego Garcia. There, paint and other things have already been prepared for its takeoff. Let it cook for a couple of days. At the same time, an announcement is made to the press about transport aviation exercises in Afghanistan. Under the guise of KTs-135, this same B-2 is also refueling in the Afghan skies. Then he calmly crosses the borders of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Where necessary, it goes to a low altitude. The optimal safe route, so as not to fall into the action of any stationary radar, is calculated in advance on computers. And what kind of radars are there from Kazakhstan? So he (taking into account the cloudy weather and in the evening) flies to Moscow. 30 km from Moscow, the B-61 hydrogen bomb, the latest experimental type with a concrete-breaking head, a GPS receiver and a stealth form, is separated from it. B-2 turns around and goes back like a shadow. This bomb glides quickly and silently in the evening twilight. It flies straight to the Kremlin and carefully goes underground at the base of Ivan the Great, 20 meters deep. Here someone will say - but above the Kremlin, the signal of the Live PiS is muffled. That’s right, it’s muted, but within a radius of no more than a hundred meters, otherwise half of Moscow would have to be left without LivePiS, and modern Moscow cannot live without GiPiS. So, the bomb went underground and exploded there at a minimum power of 0,1 kt. What is called a "neutron bomb". The radius of destruction is very tiny - three hundred meters. But Putin's bunker will reach him. The radius of neutron radiation is also small - 500 meters. But it will pass through all the walls and will also reach Putin. Unless he dug a bunker deeper than 500 m for himself. He will also kill the Kremlin guards and everyone around him. And an hour later Trump calls the one who survived instead of Putin. Shoigu, for example. Hello, Sergei Kuzhugedovich, Trump is worried. The CIA is reporting to me that Islamists from ISIS have just detonated a backpack munition in a tunnel under the Kremlin. My condolences. By the way, congratulations on your assumption of a high post. Don't believe me? Do your experts say different? Well, it's up to you to decide who to believe. You can trust the experts and start a war with us. And we will all die. You are guaranteed, as you understand, that we will get you in any bunker, and maybe I will survive. You can start a non-nuclear war with us. You will lose, and what will your people say? Or you can wage a trade war, you will lose it too. Or you can pretend that you believed me, and we’ll decide everything amicably. You give up Crimea, we lift sanctions and strengthen trade. We start the relationship with a clean slate. ISIS will take responsibility, I will ensure that. Let's find some of their leaders and kill them together. I will provide this for you too.
        1. +1
          6 November 2019 21: 41
          Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
          The Americans decided seriously and without fools to return Crimea to Ukraine.


          You can not read further.
        2. 0
          14 November 2019 13: 16
          One of the ways, not the most successful, to start WW III?!
  87. 0
    7 November 2019 21: 55
    After all, everything initially requires money.
    We don’t have many of them yet, which is precisely why two divisions of strategists are stationed at only two airfields.
    Those. they are very vulnerable.
    My deep conviction: to change the structure of the Strategic Aviation Command.
    Namely, it is necessary to create a new staff of air regiments.
    For example: 16 strategic aviation complexes, 8 tankers, 4 AWACS, 6 Ka-52 helicopters (for take-off cover, base defense from saboteurs, etc.)
    Of course, there is one such regiment at one airfield.
    All equipment should be in caponiers, and not like in Engels in a line on the central locking
  88. 0
    8 November 2019 19: 53
    Quote: Saboteur
    Namely, it is necessary to create a new staff of air regiments.
    For example: 16 strategic aviation complexes, 8 tankers, 4 AWACS, 6 Ka-52 helicopters (for take-off cover, defense

    And how many regiments will there be in these states? 3? Where can you recruit tankers and AWACS? Do you know how many of them are left flying?
  89. 0
    14 November 2019 13: 15
    Thank you very much Dear Author! At least Someone is concerned about the Air Component of the Strategic Nuclear Forces! Conclusions. 1-We need at least 72 Strategists. 2 - It is necessary to make the Tu-160, because It will be CHEAPER than the PAK-DA! 3 - When, after all, will the Air Force repaint Our Strategists, a la, at least, the Mi-26!
  90. -1
    26 November 2019 23: 44
    The risk of an offensive nuclear war from the United States is constantly growing.

    To significantly reduce this risk, it is necessary to put two divisions of Sarmat ICBMs (48 missiles) with warheads of 15-25 megatons on combat duty and aim them at the largest cities in the United States.

    The Russian national security doctrine should provide for a massive retaliatory nuclear strike on US territory if nuclear weapons are used on the territory of the Russian Federation, no matter tactical or strategic.
    And then no one will talk about the possibility of starting a “small” nuclear war in Europe or Asia using tactical nuclear charges.
    Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia will inevitably lead to the complete destruction of the aggressor - this should become an axiom that does not require proof and has no exceptions!
  91. 0
    27 November 2019 23: 03
    The solution to these problems is to create small drones with one bomb. Small means easily camouflaged. taking off from any airfield. Small means cheap. This means there will be a lot of them. Take off in pairs: a combat vehicle and a tanker. After takeoff, refueling to full weight, which due to speed can be twice the takeoff weight.
    .
    And there is no need to strive for ultra-precision. The main thing in retaliation is retribution. The mines are already empty. Enemy planes have already taken off from the airfields. The targets of the retaliatory strike should be exclusively enemy cities.
    .
    Strategists with a person on board today are only suitable for storing nuclear weapons in the sky while explosions rage on the ground. They can be used to strike enemy territory after destroying enemy satellites and suppressing air defenses.
  92. +6
    1 December 2019 22: 09
    Quote: Svetlana
    With a 100 Mt explosion, only about 25 kg of free neutrons are produced

    The explosion of a three-stage thermonuclear charge with a power of 100 Mtn produces about 3000 kg of radioactive isotopes - fission products of the third stage, made of uranium 238 (which captures neutrons from the synthesis of the second stage from deuteride).

    12,5 kg of free neutrons are produced during the explosion of a two-stage thermonuclear charge with a power of 50 Mt with a lead shell instead of the third stage.
  93. 0
    21 January 2020 06: 02
    great, guys. I'm glad the red button is not in your hands. Neither there, nor here. You synchronize each other's brains. Go to your wives. And do what you need to do. We have to fight there. Then there will be divorces and other things that are so unnecessary in families. Debt to the Motherland, but honor to no one.
  94. 0
    21 January 2020 06: 05
    Don’t forget your wife’s favorite flowers

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

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