Military Review

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

481
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.
Author:
Photos used:
flickr user Laith Jobran, Rostec Group of Companies, theaviationgeekclub.com, USAF
481 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sibiriya
    Sibiriya 3 November 2019 18: 15 New
    +6
    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. lev1759
      lev1759 3 November 2019 19: 10 New
      +1
      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. timokhin-aa
        3 November 2019 19: 31 New
        28
        Американцы внедрили такую функцию на КР "Томагавк". Напишите им, что они неправы, а то так и помрут не узнав.

        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. Severok
          Severok 3 November 2019 23: 25 New
          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. 2Albert
          2Albert 4 November 2019 00: 01 New
          +3
          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. timokhin-aa
            4 November 2019 01: 45 New
            -2
            After takeoff, can the flight mission be entered?
            1. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 4 November 2019 19: 49 New
              -6
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              After takeoff, can the flight mission be entered?


              С появлением более совершенной элементной базы и более качественных и быстродействующих алгоритмов обработки данных, теперь в новые модификации КР типа "Томагавк" одновременно загружается не одно полетное задание, а массив целей (основная и потенциальные) и соответственно ее можно перенацелить только на потенциальную цель.
              Accordingly, flight missions and retargeting options are loaded into the rocket initially.

              Ввести внезапно возникший адрес "на деревню к дедушке", если он заранее не отражен в массиве потенциальных целей - до сих пор нереально!
          2. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 4 November 2019 19: 46 New
            -9
            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. Alexey LK
          Alexey LK 4 November 2019 18: 15 New
          +3
          Всё-таки в статье не убедительно раскрыты причины, по которым бомберам-стратегам нужны свободнопадающие атомные бомбы - это раз. А два - Вы же сами пишете, что у америкосов это для нападения. А РФ это зачем? А как же "асимметричные ответы"? Не лучше ли развивать устойчивость ПВО - в т.ч. за счёт космической компоненты, сверхдальнобойных ракет, замаскированных стартовых комплексов (типа контейнеров) и т.д.?
      2. Something
        Something 3 November 2019 22: 04 New
        +8
        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. timokhin-aa
          3 November 2019 22: 34 New
          +3
          You do not understand the meaning of what you read. Understood the opposite, so to speak.
          1. Something
            Something 3 November 2019 22: 43 New
            +6
            timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin)! I understand how you wrote in Russian.
            1. timokhin-aa
              4 November 2019 02: 00 New
              +1
              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. Something
                Something 4 November 2019 02: 49 New
                +7
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                That is, an intermediate conclusion that anyone can make full-fledged person such is:

                Вы для начало посмотрите на свой интеллект! Для таких, как вы и других "полноценных" - учите радиолокацию и не пишите глупости. Supersound at all does not affect the image intensifier tube (EPR) летательного аппарата физически. Пример для таких, как вы и других "полноценных" - самолёты Ф-22 и Ф-35, которые летают со сверхзвуковыми скоростями и имеют ещё более малую ЭОП(ЭПР). Одним словом - учите матчасть, "полноценный наш" с "полноценными" своими сотоварищами на ВО, которые поддерживают ваши глупости.
                1. SovAr238A
                  SovAr238A 4 November 2019 20: 18 New
                  -4
                  Quote: Something
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  That is, an intermediate conclusion that anyone can make full-fledged person such is:

                  Вы для начало посмотрите на свой интеллект! Для таких, как вы и других "полноценных" - учите радиолокацию и не пишите глупости. Supersound at all does not affect the image intensifier tube (EPR) летательного аппарата физически. Пример для таких, как вы и других "полноценных" - самолёты Ф-22 и Ф-35, которые летают со сверхзвуковыми скоростями и имеют ещё более малую ЭОП(ЭПР). Одним словом - учите матчасть, "полноценный наш" с "полноценными" своими сотоварищами на ВО, которые поддерживают ваши глупости.


                  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. Something
                    Something 5 November 2019 11: 37 New
                    +4
                    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! Попытка демагога прикрыть свою ложь по ЭПР объекта пустой чушью и потом сказать: "Я про ЭПР ничего не говорил, и о том что она меняется, я ведь говорил о комплексе уплонения".
                    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. Something
            Something 4 November 2019 01: 48 New
            +7
            Dear Alexander Timokhin! Even correct punctuation errors, невозможно с вами согласиться в следующем: " В случае с Б-2, уходит не особо нужный в таком режиме «сверхзвук», который ещё и «нагоняет» дополнительную ЭПР за счёт концентрации влаги из воздуха во фронте скачка за самолётом."
            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. wlkw
          wlkw 3 November 2019 23: 31 New
          -1
          How is your statement related to your quote?
        3. Avior
          Avior 4 November 2019 01: 28 New
          0
          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.
          Противопоставление "уходит- добавляется".
          Confuse
          added ... shorter range
          , stylistically unsuccessful sentence.
          hi
          1. Something
            Something 4 November 2019 02: 37 New
            +8
            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. Avior
              Avior 4 November 2019 03: 07 New
              -2
              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. SovAr238A
                SovAr238A 4 November 2019 20: 22 New
                -4
                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. Avior
                  Avior 4 November 2019 20: 42 New
                  -4
                  as I understand it, it manifests itself most often at close to sound speeds and when switching to supersonic?
                  1. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A 4 November 2019 21: 31 New
                    -4
                    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. Avior
                      Avior 4 November 2019 21: 57 New
                      -3
                      I know. but it comes
                      often[i] [/ i] when close to sound
              2. Something
                Something 5 November 2019 11: 49 New
                +6
                Avior (Sergey)! Do not assume то, что не влияет на ЭОП(ЭПР) объекта... Вы подпитываете "борца" с российской техникой - SovAr238A (Ал) глупостями, который моментально их подхватывает, и считает всех за дураков на ВО. The Prandtl-Glauert effect does not affect the plane’s image intensifier (ESR) at all.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 5 November 2019 12: 29 New
                  +9
                  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. Chaldon48
        Chaldon48 4 November 2019 04: 24 New
        +6
        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. tol100v
      tol100v 3 November 2019 19: 52 New
      19
      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. Sibiriya
        Sibiriya 3 November 2019 20: 49 New
        -5
        Comparison of incomparable) yes you are a philosopher laughing A bunch of minuscule run am
        Crossing Europe laughing
        1. maxcor1974
          maxcor1974 3 November 2019 23: 01 New
          16
          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?

          Автор, вам сценарии к фильмам Марвела писать. Какая "второстепенная цель"? Ядерная война, это война на уничтожение. Планы, как наши, так и американские не предусматривают частичного применения ЯО по 1-5-10 целям противника и на этом всё, ожидаем ответку. ЯО - оружие судного дня, никаких чудиков вывозящих остатки "какого недобитого" арсенала не будет. Да и вообще, вы представляете, что будет на месте авиабазы, после её поражения 1-5-10 мегатонной МБР? Какие автомашины, по каким дорогам??? Вам в психушку. И пожалуйста, не пишите больше ничего, идите спокойно в макдональдсе булочками торговать.
          1. Alexey LK
            Alexey LK 4 November 2019 18: 46 New
            0
            Во многом согласен, но только не с тем, что Вы пишете о планах - они могут быть самыми разными. Потому что тогда и ПРО Москвы не имеет смысла - массированный удар она не выдержит, а ограниченного, если верить Вам, быть не может - так? Планы составляются, исходя из возможностей противника (и своих собственных). Идея в том, чтобы развивать свои возможности до уровня, когда планы противника становятся нереалистичными (с точки зрения одержания им победы). А вот как это лучше делать - есть варианты. И потом - у войны есть разные фронты, не только фронт вооружённой борьбы - ещё и политико-дипломатический, экономический, психологический и т.д. И если ограниченным ядерным ударом нападающий сможет сломить волю противника к сопротивлению (или если он будет верить в реальность этого), то почему такой удар является нереальным?... На мой взгляд, в статье даже более важное, что нужно обсуждать - это насколько действительно США готовятся к ядерному нападению и почему, зачем они это делают. Действительно ли они могут выбрать модель поведения "крысы, загнанной в угол, которой нечего терять", или же есть другие варианты? Тут есть, что обсуждать и без путей повышения боевой ценности дальних бомберов в ядерном конфликте... Хотя и это не лишнее.
          2. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 4 November 2019 20: 42 New
            -7
            Quote: maxcor1974

            Автор, вам сценарии к фильмам Марвела писать. Какая "второстепенная цель"? Ядерная война, это война на уничтожение. Планы, как наши, так и американские не предусматривают частичного применения ЯО по 1-5-10 целям противника и на этом всё, ожидаем ответку. ЯО - оружие судного дня, никаких чудиков вывозящих остатки "какого недобитого" арсенала не будет. Да и вообще, вы представляете, что будет на месте авиабазы, после её поражения 1-5-10 мегатонной МБР? Какие автомашины, по каким дорогам??? Вам в психушку. И пожалуйста, не пишите больше ничего, идите спокойно в макдональдсе булочками торговать.


            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. Svetlana
              Svetlana 1 December 2019 21: 09 New
              0
              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. Ehanatone
            Ehanatone 5 November 2019 03: 03 New
            +4
            "Какие автомашины, по каким дорогам??? Вам в психушку"
            In conditions of mass ionization, only the first blows will be purposeful, and then to whom God will send
      2. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 4 November 2019 20: 25 New
        -5
        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
      mvg 4 November 2019 06: 24 New
      -2
      four countries have, on the "approach" fifth - India


      Minimum 7 countries. Also France, England, China, North Korea, and the Kyrgyz Republic in Israel.
  2. Karen
    Karen 3 November 2019 18: 20 New
    +3
    This system is beautiful !!!
    Poetics A
    Pyaterochka ...
    1. okko077
      okko077 3 November 2019 23: 47 New
      -6
      You will not be appreciated ..
      The author proved the opposite!
      Пи_ндосы могут держать своих стратегов в любой части мира...В этом случае триада есть...Наши стратеги привязаны и местоположение их известно...Бред о перенацеливании не проходит...Нет, пилить Лебеди не надо, они уже есть...Новых сделают штук пять для восстановления и подготовки к производству ПАК ДА...А так они особо не нужны....Если из ПАК ДА сделают очередного монстра, то такая махина тоже нахрен не нужна....А к тому идёт дело...Совсем плохо с головой у ..."мудрого" руководства...Если мы видим F-35, то они будут видеть и ПАК ДА....Максимальный взлётный вес должен быть меньше 100 тн, лучше чуть меньше...
  3. 210ox
    210ox 3 November 2019 18: 23 New
    +4
    Thanks to the author for the detailed article. For me, some things were news.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 18: 25 New
      +6
      You are welcome. I have long wanted to raise this Temko. Here I raised it.
      1. dauria
        dauria 4 November 2019 00: 05 New
        +8
        You are welcome. I have long wanted to raise this Temko. Here I raised it.

        Ну, тогда ещё один вопросик. При полёте наших Ту-95 в арктике к ним над северным полюсом пристраиваются 3 F-15 и один КС-135. Меняя друг друга, дозаправляясь , пасут наш бомбер как овцу до самой нашей границы. Истребитель с продолжительностью полёта стратега. И это не выдумка, а их реальная тактика. У нас сколько заправщиков ? Сколько тактических самолётов ДРЛО типа "Хоккай" ? да черт с ним, любых ДРЛО ? Ан-71 сделали и оставили на Украине с развалом. И ничего. А без этих "вспомогательных" самолётов нам через арктику дороги нет. Над северным ледовитым не мы хозяйничаем, а они.
        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. timokhin-aa
          4 November 2019 02: 12 New
          -5
          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.

          Но дело в том, что при обмене ядерными ударами всё это работать не будет. Кроме того, вот тут и начинается тактика не полётов, а именно ударов. То есть РЛС, которые используются для первоначального обнаружения и базу, с которой может взлететь F-15 надо накрыть крылатыми ракетами с бомбера, и тогда возникает определённая "дыра" в воздушном пространстве. Баз на Аляске немного.

          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. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 4 November 2019 21: 01 New
            -6
            Quote: timokhin-aa

            Но дело в том, что при обмене ядерными ударами всё это работать не будет. Кроме того, вот тут и начинается тактика не полётов, а именно ударов. То есть РЛС, которые используются для первоначального обнаружения и базу, с которой может взлететь F-15 надо накрыть крылатыми ракетами с бомбера, и тогда возникает определённая "дыра" в воздушном пространстве. Баз на Аляске немного.

            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. Ehanatone
              Ehanatone 5 November 2019 03: 40 New
              +2
              "Энгельс - никому не нужен. Его боевая ценность в случае БП - нулеваяя"
              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. Andy
      Andy 3 November 2019 22: 09 New
      -7
      here is Dmitry for his comment for which they are now being denied? justify do not be silent
      1. Alexey LK
        Alexey LK 4 November 2019 18: 54 New
        0
        Может, разве, за то, что не "Хоккай" правильно, а "ХоукАй" (Hawkeye)? wink
  4. Something
    Something 3 November 2019 18: 25 New
    +2
    Ужас! Когда "морской" специалист берётся за тему по авиации! И не надо писать общими фразами про то, в чём не разбираетесь... Стратег!
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 18: 36 New
      +6
      What a tantrum, citizen? Essentially mind.
      1. Something
        Something 3 November 2019 19: 02 New
        +6
        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. timokhin-aa
          3 November 2019 19: 28 New
          +2
          I am not a submariner.

          Essentially mind please.
          1. tol100v
            tol100v 3 November 2019 19: 57 New
            +3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Essentially mind please.

            Ambitious illiteracy!
            1. timokhin-aa
              3 November 2019 22: 35 New
              -5
              You? Well, it happens.
            2. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 4 November 2019 21: 18 New
              -5
              Quote: Tol100v
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Essentially mind please.

              Ambitious illiteracy!

              How do you confirm?
              Or just logged in?
          2. Sibiriya
            Sibiriya 3 November 2019 20: 52 New
            -7
            Yes, there is nothing to argue with him) I distributed the minuses to everyone, making a smart appearance laughing
        2. Vik ganz
          Vik ganz 4 November 2019 01: 19 New
          10
          Вообще то я лет тридцать (а то и больше) знаю о "возможности перенацеливания ракет" в воздухе (после производства пуска). Ещё в Советском Союзе были такие ракеты. А сейчас Путин сказал об этом:"Изделие движется в облаке плазмы (температура составляет больше 2 тысяч градусов Цельсия), скорость больше...скоростей звука и при этом блок управляется". А если существует возможность управления изделием,то имеется и возможность ввода новых данных.
          1. timokhin-aa
            4 November 2019 02: 25 New
            -6
            No, you didn’t ruin the chapel. It was before you, in the 14 century laughing
          2. Alexey LK
            Alexey LK 4 November 2019 18: 58 New
            -1
            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. figwam
        figwam 3 November 2019 19: 37 New
        11
        A very strange article ...
      3. Andrey VOV
        Andrey VOV 3 November 2019 20: 26 New
        11
        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. timokhin-aa
          3 November 2019 22: 36 New
          -7
          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. Aleks1973
            Aleks1973 4 November 2019 16: 53 New
            +8
            You have absolutely no idea who and how works in the General Staff!
            1. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 4 November 2019 21: 47 New
              -6
              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. SovAr238A
                SovAr238A 5 November 2019 00: 06 New
                -7
                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. Ehanatone
                  Ehanatone 5 November 2019 03: 47 New
                  +5
                  "А если среди них выпускники академии - то почему я не могу их взять на работу?"
                  I didn’t understand anything, about - therefore, just in case of fire, I set + ... laughing
    2. Mephody
      Mephody 3 November 2019 18: 59 New
      -5
      Sound your thoughts. And then they threw it on the fan and that's it.
      1. Something
        Something 3 November 2019 19: 17 New
        12
        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. timokhin-aa
          3 November 2019 19: 29 New
          -10
          Yes, you are a storyteller simply, on closed topics, he writes articles, well laughing

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

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

            =========
            Увы! "Темы" - тоже бывают закрытыми!
          3. maxcor1974
            maxcor1974 4 November 2019 00: 02 New
            12
            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. timokhin-aa
              4 November 2019 02: 23 New
              -5
              Wasn’t it easier to read the principles of the use of nuclear weapons?


              So I read. American
            2. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 4 November 2019 21: 49 New
              -7
              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. Old Skeptic
            Old Skeptic 5 November 2019 21: 28 New
            +1
            "Закрытым" - бывает всё.
            И даже "Открытия". hi
        2. Mephody
          Mephody 5 November 2019 16: 42 New
          -7
          That is, in essence, you have nothing to object to, there are no arguments, but you disagree. Clear.
    3. maxcor1974
      maxcor1974 3 November 2019 23: 11 New
      12
      Полностью с Вами согласен. Служил в РВСН ещё в 90е. Наши войска одноразовые, мы последние начинаем и... как сказал президент: "все в раю".
    4. victor50
      victor50 4 November 2019 19: 47 New
      -8
      Quote: Something
      Ужас! Когда "морской" специалист берётся за тему по авиации! И не надо писать общими фразами про то, в чём не разбираетесь... Стратег!

      You are obviously a strategist! lol Кроме практически неприкрытого хамства - ничего! Читать противно! Правильно вас просят возражать по существу, а не по принципу "а ты кто такой".
  5. bars1
    bars1 3 November 2019 18: 29 New
    +3
    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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 18: 36 New
      -5
      Well, yes, where do the peasants Sivolapim go to us - and on airplanes, right?
      1. Alexey LK
        Alexey LK 4 November 2019 19: 08 New
        +2
        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. Old Skeptic
          Old Skeptic 5 November 2019 21: 39 New
          +4
          Более того войсковая ПВО весьма дальнобойна и разнообразна и почти каждая ПУ имеет свою РЛС (пусть не слишком мощную но свою) и способны объединяться в кластеры под единым управлением одной из машин (по крайней мере с "Буками" так, а это комплекс средней дальности).
    2. Alf
      Alf 3 November 2019 21: 28 New
      +3
      Quote: bars1
      Russia states that it is not the first to use nuclear weapons.

      Doctrine of the 2018 year.
      1. Avior
        Avior 4 November 2019 03: 15 New
        -1
        it needs to be fixed somewhere in the form of a splash screen on the site, what would everyone read at the entrance.
        а то как только обсуждение в стиле "как потопить авианосец", так изделия со спецБЧ несутся к авианосцу табунами в комментариях....
        1. svp67
          svp67 4 November 2019 13: 00 New
          0
          Quote: Avior
          а то как только обсуждение в стиле "как потопить авианосец", так изделия со спецБЧ несутся к авианосцу табунами в комментариях....

          Our missiles, as we want and launch, especially since to destroy a full-fledged AUG, there will not be enough special ammunition ...
          1. Avior
            Avior 4 November 2019 15: 03 New
            -3
            There is a military doctrine in which their application is stipulated.
            Unless you have private ones ...
            1. svp67
              svp67 4 November 2019 19: 22 New
              0
              Quote: Avior
              There is a military doctrine in which their application is stipulated.

              Простите, а чем оглашенные пункты военной доктрины противоречат тому, что в каком то конкретном случае, для уничтожения АУГ возможно применение "роя КР с спецБЧ", какой конкретно пункт доктрины это отрицает?
              1. Avior
                Avior 4 November 2019 20: 05 New
                -4
                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. svp67
                  svp67 4 November 2019 20: 31 New
                  +1
                  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. Avior
                    Avior 4 November 2019 20: 40 New
                    -3
                    I'm alright.
                    I'm not saying that global and unlimited.
                    but full-fledged, and aircraft carriers in it will play completely different roles.
                    не видел ни одного сценария при описании борьбы против авианосцев на сайте , который бы начинался с вводной "идет полноценная ядерная война".
                    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.
                    а то как только обсуждение в стиле "как потопить авианосец", так изделия со спецБЧ несутся к авианосцу табунами в комментариях....

                    to add, with the exception of discussions of combat with aircraft carriers, in the context of a full-fledged nuclear war.
                    А насчет "Ну тут с Вами американцы не согласятся. Они то допускают ограниченную ядерную войну"- так они практически полностью избавились от тактического ядерного оружия.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 5 November 2019 02: 12 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Avior
                      so they almost completely got rid of tactical nuclear weapons.

                      Да? Тут же ключевое слово "практически"...Недавно НАТО опубликовала карту размещения мест хранения этого "практически" полностью "уничтоженного" американского оружия и это доказывает, что оно есть. Так мало того, они еще и обучают своих союзников по НАТО его применению...
                      1. Avior
                        Avior 5 November 2019 02: 29 New
                        -1
                        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. svp67
                        svp67 5 November 2019 04: 21 New
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        Relic of the soviet era

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

                        А есть цифры для сравнения? Как то эти данные не оглашает не та, не эта сторона. Так, что мы знаем про бомбы, но про спецБЧ для тех же "Томагавков" или про количество 155-мм и 210-мм спецБП мы не знаем.
                        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. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 4 November 2019 21: 54 New
          -10
          Quote: svp67
          Quote: Avior
          а то как только обсуждение в стиле "как потопить авианосец", так изделия со спецБЧ несутся к авианосцу табунами в комментариях....

          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.

          Версия сказок. как одна ядерная ракета меняет весь весь мир. сказка по форме "сферический конь в вакууме"...
      2. Alien From
        Alien From 4 November 2019 19: 16 New
        -9
        Here it wiped cheers crackers nose, congratulations)))))
  6. meandr51
    meandr51 4 November 2019 17: 24 New
    +1
    Well, if it says, then of course ...
  • knn54
    knn54 3 November 2019 18: 33 New
    +5
    Something dragged from PAK YES.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 18: 37 New
      11
      It is very difficult to make a bomber. And very, very expensive.
      1. xax
        xax 3 November 2019 22: 35 New
        +6
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        It is very difficult to make a bomber. And very, very expensive.

        Is a submarine easier and cheaper?
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 November 2019 23: 53 New
          -9
          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. Geo⁣
            Geo⁣ 4 November 2019 00: 25 New
            +8
            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. timokhin-aa
              4 November 2019 02: 13 New
              -6
              Well, compare the number of countries that master submarine spoons and those that master strategic aviation.
              1. Geo⁣
                Geo⁣ 4 November 2019 10: 00 New
                +8
                Why should this be necessarily connected with the complexity of production?
                1. SovAr238A
                  SovAr238A 4 November 2019 22: 06 New
                  -9
                  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. Geo⁣
                    Geo⁣ 4 November 2019 23: 28 New
                    +8
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    points there are a couple of hundred

                    Вот именно. Почему бы определяющим пунктом не быть любому из этой "пары сотен"? Почему бы не всем 199, окромя сложности производства? С чего вдруг именно сложность производства? Автор считает, что, например, страна (хотите - страны), производящая объективно лучшие на сегодняшний момент гражданские самолеты, страна, в свое время поставившая (страны поставившие) на крыло конкорд - не в силах спроектировать и построить бомбер? И так далее и тому подобное.
                    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. SovAr238A
                      SovAr238A 5 November 2019 00: 11 New
                      -9
                      Quote: Geo⁣
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      points there are a couple of hundred

                      Вот именно. Почему бы определяющим пунктом не быть любому из этой "пары сотен"? Почему бы не всем 199, окромя сложности производства? С чего вдруг именно сложность производства? Автор считает, что, например, страна (хотите - страны), производящая объективно лучшие на сегодняшний момент гражданские самолеты, страна, в свое время поставившая (страны поставившие) на крыло конкорд - не в силах спроектировать и построить бомбер? И так далее и тому подобное.
                      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
                        xax 5 November 2019 00: 23 New
                        +9
                        Citizen, what are you arguing with? Or are you pouring out the number of consciousness?
              2. Vik ganz
                Vik ganz 5 November 2019 07: 46 New
                +2
                Александр, ну вы уже совсем расстроились. Уже вместо "лодки" у вас появились "ложки".
                Straight according to Freud?
            2. Alexey LK
              Alexey LK 4 November 2019 19: 13 New
              -4
              No, smart people think first, and only then do something. But just the opposite - this is stupid behavior.
              1. Geo⁣
                Geo⁣ 4 November 2019 21: 12 New
                +5
                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. Alexey LK
                  Alexey LK 5 November 2019 01: 19 New
                  -4
                  1. Где Вы видели мои посты на этом сайте? Или для Вас посты и комментарии - одно и то же, филолог Вы наш? 2. Да, я употребил глагол "думать", естественно предполагая, что у этого процесса будет результат, как у меня обычно и происходит. А у Вас, судя по всему, частенько этот процесс так и заканчивается ничем, раз Вы так акцентируете на этом внимание и судите по себе. 3. Самое главное, что по сути-то Вы ничего не возразили. Кстати, неплохая иллюстрация мыслительной деятельности и творчества при создании новых образцов техники есть в интервью Николы Теслы - советую найти и почитать, если это Вам правда интересно. Это даже иногда так и называют: метод Тесла. Удачи!
                  1. xax
                    xax 5 November 2019 01: 31 New
                    +3
                    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?

                    Что вы несете? Ваше вымышленное деление надписей на данном сайте - оставьте для поучения собственной бабушки. Пост - от англ. "post" (сообщение) - все.

                    Quote: Alexey LK
                    я употребил глагол "думать", естественно предполагая, что у этого процесса будет результат, как у меня обычно и происходит

                    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. Alexey LK
                      Alexey LK 5 November 2019 01: 46 New
                      -1
                      Quote: xax
                      Пост - от англ. "post" (сообщение)

                      Раздел как называется? Правильно, "Комментарии". На кнопке что написано? Правильно, "Отправить комментарий". А Вы можете придумывать для своего удобства какие угодно термины. P.S. Про бабушку зачем? Пережила войну и голод, с 16-ти лет на Донецком металлургическом работала... Царство Небесное!
        2. svp67
          svp67 4 November 2019 13: 03 New
          -3
          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. Alien From
            Alien From 4 November 2019 19: 27 New
            -10
            The Union of bonds has sunk into oblivion as 30 years, and you all grieve ........ more positive, comrade, more positive)) !!!
            1. svp67
              svp67 4 November 2019 19: 32 New
              +1
              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. Alien From
                Alien From 4 November 2019 19: 34 New
                -9
                And what’s the excuse for you? The article for parasitism rested with the Union, wake up finally !!!
                1. svp67
                  svp67 4 November 2019 19: 39 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Alien From
                  And what’s the excuse for you?

                  А не находите странным, что Вы первый влезли в мои "горестные дела", а сейчас удивляетесь тому, что кто то интересуется Вашими. Скромнее надо вести, скромнее
                  1. Alien From
                    Alien From 4 November 2019 19: 41 New
                    -7
                    And the comments for discussion or can communicate by mail of the USSR prefer .......
          2. Geo⁣
            Geo⁣ 4 November 2019 21: 15 New
            +3
            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. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 4 November 2019 22: 12 New
            -7
            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. Geo⁣
              Geo⁣ 4 November 2019 23: 43 New
              +8
              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. Town Hall
                Town Hall 4 November 2019 23: 54 New
                -3
                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)
  • mark1
    mark1 3 November 2019 18: 33 New
    -1
    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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 18: 38 New
      -2
      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. Town Hall
        Town Hall 3 November 2019 19: 07 New
        -14
        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. timokhin-aa
          3 November 2019 19: 32 New
          0
          Even the Tu-95 is not to be scrapped, and the cabin also looks on the Tu-160.

          Avionics changes if necessary.
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 3 November 2019 19: 37 New
            -11
            И такой необходимости нет до сих пор по Вашему?.На улице 2020 год а там чудеса из 60-годов прошлого века.Какие сверхнизкие полеты с огибанием рельефа на Ту-22?..идите посмотрите как разломался пополам при "козлении".Вам не жаль своих летчиков?
            and the cab also looks on the Tu-160.
            Exactly...
            1. Dude
              Dude 3 November 2019 20: 38 New
              +3
              On the street 2020 year and there are miracles from the 60 years of the last century
              Это Ту-22М3 "из 60-годов прошлого века"? belay However! .. Just to sketch
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 3 November 2019 20: 45 New
                -13
                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. Dude
                  Dude 3 November 2019 20: 51 New
                  +8
                  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. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 3 November 2019 20: 55 New
                    -13
                    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. Dude
                      Dude 3 November 2019 21: 28 New
                      +8
                      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. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 3 November 2019 21: 31 New
                        -15
                        Final view had nothing to do with avionics. How to deliver systems developed back in 60 -so and still stand
                      2. Dude
                        Dude 3 November 2019 21: 36 New
                        +6
                        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. SovAr238A
                        SovAr238A 4 November 2019 23: 38 New
                        -5
                        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. Dude
                        Dude 5 November 2019 13: 15 New
                        +1
                        ... 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
                  2. Alexey LK
                    Alexey LK 4 November 2019 19: 20 New
                    -1
                    Это маскировка. Там под циферблатами со стрелками - айфоны спрятаны. Ясно вам? А вообще-то, ЯО - это ж вообще оружие "40-х годов прошлого века". Расслабьтесь уже.
      2. timokhin-aa
        3 November 2019 22: 37 New
        -1
        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. Town Hall
          Town Hall 3 November 2019 22: 43 New
          -7
          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. svp67
        svp67 4 November 2019 19: 46 New
        0
        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
        Какие сверхнизкие полеты с огибанием рельефа на Ту-22?..идите посмотрите как разломался пополам при "козлении"

        А познания в этом вопросе вообще "нижеплинтуса". Причем здесь авария во время "жесткого приземления" и полеты с огибанием местности? Вы, что действительно считаете, что при огибании местности нет, да нет, а приходится касаться поверхности земли и отскакивать от нее?
        Quote: Town Hall
        Exactly...

        But, who knows how she now looks on the Tu-22M3M?
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 4 November 2019 20: 03 New
          -4
          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
          А познания в этом вопросе вообще "нижеплинтуса

          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. svp67
            svp67 4 November 2019 20: 29 New
            0
            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. Storekeeper
            Storekeeper 5 November 2019 01: 17 New
            +4
            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. venik
      venik 3 November 2019 23: 10 New
      13
      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:
  • mark1
    mark1 3 November 2019 20: 24 New
    -2
    Will you fly on a stupa?
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 3 November 2019 20: 50 New
      -18
      А зачем летать на таких анахронизмах? Автор всю статью мучался обьяснить нужность воздушной части "триады" но кроме фигни про прорыв ПВО на сверхнизких высотах с целью сброса свобноднопадающих ядерных бомб уже после!!!))) обмена ударами МБР-ничего не смог придумать.
      1. mark1
        mark1 3 November 2019 21: 07 New
        +4
        Летать на "анахронизмах" с огибанием рельефа задача вообще мало выполнимая, кроме того страдает ,весьма, дальность. Но речь то в основном , как я понял, не об этом , а о высокой степени гибкости авиационной составляющей триады и живучести из за возможности вывода этой части СЯС из под первого удара. И потом, кто сказал, что стратеги только для второго удара? Вполне возможен и первый (в случае ПАК ДА) если сможем например исхитриться ударить ч.з. Мексиканскую границу. Но это мои фантазии, Генштаб и основная масса аудитории могут со мной не согласиться.
        А "анахронизмы" еще лет 15-30 себя будут оправдывать.
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 3 November 2019 21: 12 New
          -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
  • tol100v
    tol100v 3 November 2019 20: 05 New
    +9
    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!
  • mark1
    mark1 3 November 2019 20: 18 New
    +3
    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
  • Alf
    Alf 3 November 2019 21: 30 New
    +2
    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.

    "На новые бомбардировщики Ту-22М3М будут ставиться штанги дозаправки топливом в воздухе. После подписания в 1979 году договора с США об ограничении стратегических вооружений (ОСВ-2) эти штанги были сняты со строевых самолётов, а на новых уже не устанавливались", - сказал собеседник агентства.

    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.

    "Установка нового оборудования по заправке топливом позволит значительно увеличить боевой радиус применения Ту-22М3М, дальность его полёта. Она будет сопоставима со стратегическими ракетоносцами",- отметил источник.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 22: 38 New
      -6
      Как обычно, рядовой юзер ВО не понимает разницы между "сделаем" и "сделали".
      1. Alf
        Alf 3 November 2019 22: 56 New
        +3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Как обычно, рядовой юзер ВО не понимает разницы между "сделаем" и "сделали".

        Are you talking to me ?
  • okko077
    okko077 4 November 2019 12: 48 New
    -4
    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. Aleks1973
      Aleks1973 4 November 2019 17: 05 New
      -1
      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. okko077
        okko077 4 November 2019 17: 50 New
        -4
        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.
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 3 November 2019 18: 34 New
    -3
    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 ...

    И считаю, что вы всё подметили правильно, только есть ли у нас люди с широким кругозором и воображением, способные хотя бы как-то представить течение будущих войн? Могут ли они просчитать максимум ситуаций и вооружать нашу армию тем оружием, которое будет востребовано? Смогут ли они в тот самый час "Х" отдать приказ на применение этих самым СЯС?
    hi
  • Good_Anonymous
    Good_Anonymous 3 November 2019 18: 36 New
    -13
    The situation in the world is heating up.


    This is not the situation, this is paranoia.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 19: 09 New
      +4
      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. Good_Anonymous
        Good_Anonymous 3 November 2019 19: 23 New
        -5
        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


        Как всё запущено. Прежде чем создавать ПРО, которая гарантированно "свалит считанные уцелевшие ракеты", нужно как минимум быть уверенными, что уцелеют только "считанные ракеты". Потому что если уцелеют считанные десятки, то несколько прорвавшихся (считаем эффективность ПРО 90%) ракет устроят форменный ад. Вопроса о том, зачем Штатам идти на такой риск, я даже не задаю.

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


        Trump, of course, full <вырезано цензурой>but so far it has not even been submitted to Congress.
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 November 2019 19: 37 New
          -5
          Как всё запущено. Прежде чем создавать ПРО, которая гарантированно "свалит считанные уцелевшие ракеты", нужно как минимум быть уверенными, что уцелеют только "считанные ракеты".


          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?

          Зато потом Президент США сможет позвонить в Пекин и сказать что-нибудь типа "Эй, узкоглазый, ты там не заигрался в супердержаву,а?" И председатель КПК ответи ему: "Да, сэр, действительно заигрались. Подскажите нам что делать?".

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


          Well, let’s wait and this, what problems?
          1. Good_Anonymous
            Good_Anonymous 3 November 2019 20: 05 New
            -5
            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?


            Новое оружие разрабатывается постоянно. Если считать это "накалением обстановки", то сам термин становится бессмысленным.

            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
            Зато потом Президент США сможет позвонить в Пекин и сказать что-нибудь типа "Эй, узкоглазый, ты там не заигрался в супердержаву,а?"


            Прогноз уровня "бог". А что происходит в реальности - см. Северную Корею.
            1. Arkon
              Arkon 3 November 2019 20: 51 New
              +7
              Quote: Good_Anonymous
              Remind me why the States need this risk?


              По остальным пунктам ваша позиция мне ближе, чем автора статьи, однако, конкретно с этим пунктом есть варианты. "Штатам" как государству, это, конечно, не нужно, однако, скрытую концептуальную власть в Штатах давно имеют силы, мотивы которых отнюдь не рациональны. Этим силам на Штаты как государство, по сути, наплевать. Эти силы трансграничны, они вполне могут лелеять мысль создать пункт управления где-нибудь в Африке - Новой Зеландии и спокойно там отсидеться пока США и Россия превращают друг друга в плазму.

              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. Good_Anonymous
                Good_Anonymous 3 November 2019 20: 55 New
                -8
                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. Arkon
                  Arkon 3 November 2019 20: 58 New
                  +4
                  laughing I’ll tell you more - not just me.
                  1. Good_Anonymous
                    Good_Anonymous 3 November 2019 21: 00 New
                    -8
                    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. Arkon
                      Arkon 3 November 2019 21: 07 New
                      +4
                      Предлагаю дать понять вероятному противнику, что все его "нычки" нам известны и именно по ним будет нанесён удар. Думаю, именно это и имел в виду наш президент, когда говорил, что бить будем по пунктам принятия решений.
                      1. Good_Anonymous
                        Good_Anonymous 3 November 2019 21: 11 New
                        -8
                        Quote: Arkon
                        Предлагаю дать понять вероятному противнику, что все его "нычки" нам известны и именно по ним будет нанесён удар


                        А как вы думаете, в этой "скрытой власти" больше людей, чем у России боеголовок? Потому что если больше, то кто-то точно выживет. Единственный способ покарать всех - стерилизовать планету. Лучше всего - на несколько километров в глубину.
                      2. Arkon
                        Arkon 3 November 2019 21: 18 New
                        +2
                        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. Good_Anonymous
                        Good_Anonymous 3 November 2019 21: 25 New
                        -4
                        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


                        Реальный исторический Гитлер вырос на хорошо (и открыто!) подготовленной почве, шел к власти 10 лет в очень специфических исторических условиях, и был хорошо заметен всё это время. "Скрытой властью" его никто не называл. Кто в США является Гитлером или его аналогом?

                        Очень трудно было сдержать сарказм по поводу "будем". Так и вспоминается Iron Sky.
                      4. Arkon
                        Arkon 3 November 2019 21: 28 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Good_Anonymous
                        Реальный исторический Гитлер вырос на хорошо (и открыто!) подготовленной почве, шел к власти 10 лет в очень специфических исторических условиях, и был хорошо заметен всё это время. "Скрытой властью" его никто не называл.


                        Между тем, его мотивы были рациональны лишь во вторую очередь. Побуждения его были мистическими. Если вам не нравится слово "скрытый", то просто забудьте - здесь уж точно не формат углубляться в эту тему. Просто помните о том, что побуждения ЛПР могут быть, так скажем, "разными". smile
                      5. timokhin-aa
                        3 November 2019 23: 30 New
                        -3
                        . Побуждения его были мистическими. Если вам не нравится слово "скрытый", то просто забудьте - здесь уж точно не формат углубляться в эту тему. Просто помните о том, что побуждения ЛПР могут быть, так скажем, "разными".


                        And then it's time to remember about the concrete owl (who will understand the topic).
                      6. bondrostov
                        bondrostov 4 November 2019 11: 23 New
                        +1
                        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. tesser
      tesser 4 November 2019 10: 07 New
      -3
      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.
  • timokhin-aa
    3 November 2019 22: 40 New
    -3
    New weapons are being developed constantly.


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

    Прогноз уровня "бог". А что происходит в реальности - см. Северную Корею.


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


      А от разработки просто наступательного оружия остановка не накаляется? Насчет оружия "для наступательной ядерной войны" - ну нам-то откуда знать, постоянно оно разрабатывается или нет?

      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. timokhin-aa
        4 November 2019 02: 16 New
        -4
        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. Good_Anonymous
          Good_Anonymous 4 November 2019 10: 05 New
          -4
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          No, they cannot make the language you speak dead in 30 minutes.


          За язык я совсем не беспокоюсь - вы же обещали, что "некоторая ударе часть населения РФ" выживет.

          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. tesser
          tesser 4 November 2019 10: 10 New
          -2
          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. Vik ganz
      Vik ganz 4 November 2019 01: 52 New
      +4
      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. illi
      illi 4 November 2019 10: 50 New
      -1
      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. meandr51
        meandr51 4 November 2019 17: 31 New
        0
        The benefits of strikes in the DPRK and the Russian Federation are different. A war with the DPRK is not worth the risk.
        1. illi
          illi 4 November 2019 20: 33 New
          0
          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. meandr51
            meandr51 4 November 2019 20: 49 New
            +2
            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. illi
              illi 4 November 2019 21: 04 New
              0
              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. meandr51
              meandr51 4 November 2019 21: 28 New
              -1
              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 ...
  • meandr51
    meandr51 4 November 2019 17: 30 New
    0
    Are you one of those who believe that he felt sorry for him?
  • Avior
    Avior 4 November 2019 03: 21 New
    -3
    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. Good_Anonymous
      Good_Anonymous 4 November 2019 10: 11 New
      -5
      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. Avior
        Avior 4 November 2019 10: 19 New
        -1
        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. Good_Anonymous
          Good_Anonymous 4 November 2019 20: 53 New
          -4
          Quote: Avior
          there was somehow a good detailed article analyzing the possible destruction and consequences in the event of a nuclear war.


          Проблема со статьями о последствиях ядерной войны в том, что на каждую, заявлющую "будут последствия X", находится другая статья, заявляющая "нет, будут последствия Y". Но с миллионами жертв вроде никто не спорит.

          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. Avior
            Avior 5 November 2019 02: 43 New
            +1
            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. NEXUS
          NEXUS 5 November 2019 01: 37 New
          +1
          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.
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 3 November 2019 23: 11 New
    +6
    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. timokhin-aa
      4 November 2019 02: 19 New
      -5
      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. NEXUS
        NEXUS 4 November 2019 15: 22 New
        +5
        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. timokhin-aa
          5 November 2019 15: 34 New
          0
          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. NEXUS
            NEXUS 5 November 2019 21: 52 New
            +1
            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.
  • illi
    illi 4 November 2019 10: 33 New
    +2

    Зато потом Президент США сможет позвонить в Пекин и сказать что-нибудь типа "Эй, узкоглазый, ты там не заигрался в супердержаву,а?" И председатель КПК ответи ему: "Да, сэр, действительно заигрались. Подскажите нам что делать?".

    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.
    Автор наверно чтобы поставить какого нибудь ботана на место, нападёт при нем на КМС по боксу. И если сам не получит по рогам, скажет батану "Ну че понял с кем связался".
    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. timokhin-aa
      5 November 2019 15: 38 New
      +1
      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.
  • Vik ganz
    Vik ganz 4 November 2019 01: 47 New
    +4
    Хотя если брать в расчёт два случая: "невидимость систем Пэтриот и всеми другими, производства США, при пуске баллистических ракет Северной Кореей", (системы, установленные в Японии и Южной Корее не отреагировали или не видели, северокорейских ракет) ?
    And the second case is with the Saudi oil refineries, where neither Patriot, nor any others reacted at all.
    А как тут говорить о "считанных уцелевших ракетах" ? А чем США будут их перехватывать ?
    Patriot system? But they don’t even see outdated ones, but what about Russian hypersonic ones?
    Author, get better prepared.
    1. tesser
      tesser 4 November 2019 10: 19 New
      -2
      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).
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 4 November 2019 03: 52 New
    +2
    Добрый_Анонимус, не ведитесь на эту ерунду. Они мощность подрыва не снизили, а точность немного повысили по ходу очередной модернизации, и ничего там на корню не рубит "ценность БРПЛ в системе сдерживания". Что такое "контрценностный удар" - наверно надо спросить у эльфов. Насчет бомбы Б-63 я информации не нашел, подозреваю, что ее вообще нет. Есть Б-61, которая, естественно, не оружие первого удара. У ней точность действительно повышается в ходе опять-таки очередной модернизации, но мощность не уменьшается, а делается регулируемой (вероятно, в сторону уменьшения) для уменьшения побочного ущерба и радиоактивного хвоста. Почему это должно говорить о подготовке первого удара? Что бы сказал автор, если бы мощность повышалась? "Шеф, всё пропало"? Т. е. повышается - конечно плохо, регулируется в сторону понижения - тоже однако плохо. Остается как есть - плохо или нет? Наверно тоже плохо, потому что Б-83 - остается как есть и она тоже вызывает у автора необъяснимое беспокойство. smile
  • SVD68
    SVD68 4 November 2019 17: 27 New
    -1
    Quote: Good_Anonymous

    Как всё запущено. Прежде чем создавать ПРО, которая гарантированно "свалит считанные уцелевшие ракеты", нужно как минимум быть уверенными, что уцелеют только "считанные ракеты". Потому что если уцелеют считанные десятки, то несколько прорвавшихся (считаем эффективность ПРО 90%) ракет устроят форменный ад. Вопроса о том, зачем Штатам идти на такой риск, я даже не задаю.

    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. bk0010
      bk0010 4 November 2019 18: 32 New
      +1
      In this regard, it is not worth steaming at all: the Americans will justify everything that is beneficial to them.
    2. Good_Anonymous
      Good_Anonymous 6 November 2019 00: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: SVD68
      this will justify the first disarming strike. After all, the Americans struck at military targets, and these beast-Russians at innocent civilians.


      И, естественно, а Америке никто не спросит "жили же мирно N десятков лет, нафига вы спровоцировали убийство нескольких миллионов из нас?". Потому что тупые американцы такие тупые.

      Но вы дали (как смогли) ответ на вопрос "как они будут оправдываться". На вопрос "зачем это американцам" вы не ответили.
  • Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 3 November 2019 21: 36 New
    0
    Последняя "большая война" была почти 75 лет назад. Но локальные продолжаются без перерывов. Меняется и стратегия превращаясь из "ядерного сдерживания" к (как говорили укравояки на Донбасе) к стратегии "жабьих прыжков" - метрополии сохраняются и воюют за "большие интересы" местные аборигены. Нет ныне принципиального противостояния как было между СССР и США. Соответственно ядерное оружие перестало быть сдерживающим фактором в том смысле который указывался в годы "холодной войны". Ядерные державы очень сильно между собой связаны и экономически поэтому глобальная война сейчас не выгодна никому. Все эти триады это уже вчерашний день, революционно меняется и оружие, являясь более точечным и менее уязвимым чем традиционные средства ведения войны. Отсюда и минимизация ЯО и т.д..
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 22: 42 New
      0
      Now realities

      1. Модернизация БЧ БРПЛ "Трайдент" в оружия высокоточного удара ограниченной силы
      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. Будущий выход из "Открытого неба".

      Doesn’t it bother you?
      1. Kettle
        Kettle 4 November 2019 03: 17 New
        +3
        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!).
        В настоящее время для более-менее гарантированного уничтожения/повреждения шахты МБР, типа Р-36М2, с учетом декларируемых КВО и необходимого избыточного давления, требуется одна "тяжелая" боеголовка W88 - под 500 килотонн или пара "легких" W76 - по 100 килотонн. Для поражения первым ударом всех наших шахт, около 150 штук, им нужно грубо 200-300 боеголовок.
        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.
        Если же рассматривать картинку, которую вы приводили, кажется, в другой своей статье, как штуки три из десятка таких "маленьких" боеголовок взрываются над шахтой (само по себе странно, что взрывы не наземные), то при сохранении договора СНВ-3, а пока он в силе (а боеголовки уже заменяются), американцам тогда только на наши шахтные МБР придется использовать весь свой развернутый арсенал (менее 1500 боеголовок). И то не хватит, придется звать англичан и французов.
        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.

        Хотя их американская аргументация внедрения W76-2: "Предотвращение применения вероятным противником (Россией) тактического оружия в надежде, что США не пойдут на использование своего стратегического ядерного оружия в ответ на ограниченную ядерную атаку" тоже логически выглядит не очень.

        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.
        Если считать, что развертывание GDI, на территории США, и Иджис Ашор, в Польше и Румынии, с недостаточно высокой вероятностью защищает натовцев от возможных единичных ракетно-ядерных ударов, например, с территории Ирана, КНДР или других азиатских "молодых" ядерных государств. Тогда превентивный пуск Трайдента с мини-БГ с одной из Огайо неподалеку, километрах в 2000, по готовящейся, скажем, к запуску БР или по резиденции руководства страны займет минут 10 вместо нескольких часов, как при обычных авиационных ударах.
        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. Avior
          Avior 4 November 2019 10: 22 New
          -3
          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!).
          В настоящее время для более-менее гарантированного уничтожения/повреждения шахты МБР, типа Р-36М2, с учетом декларируемых КВО и необходимого избыточного давления, требуется одна "тяжелая" боеголовка W88 - под 500 килотонн или пара "легких" W76 - по 100 килотонн. Для поражения первым ударом всех наших шахт, около 150 штук, им нужно грубо 200-300 боеголовок.

          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. Kettle
            Kettle 4 November 2019 11: 57 New
            +1
            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).
            В любом случае, несмотря на спорность некоторых постулатов и выводов Александра Тимохина и такую... легкую ядерную агрессивность, ему большое спасибо за статьи, в которых не перепечатка западных источников, не "ура" или "доколе", а цифры, факты и логические выводы, с которыми можно соглашаться или поспорить.
        2. timokhin-aa
          5 November 2019 13: 08 New
          0
          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. Vitaly Tsymbal
        Vitaly Tsymbal 4 November 2019 07: 44 New
        +1
        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. tesser
          tesser 4 November 2019 11: 05 New
          -2
          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. Vitaly Tsymbal
            Vitaly Tsymbal 4 November 2019 12: 20 New
            -1
            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.А вот в том что глобальная ядерная война невыгодна США, я с вами согласен... только дело не в сортах нефти))) Дело в том что даже от продаж "второсортного уралса" американские межнациональные корпорацию имеют прибыль. Так зачем убивать курочку несущую золотые яйца, даже если эти яйца размером с перепелиные, но золотые.
            1. tesser
              tesser 4 November 2019 13: 22 New
              -1
              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.

              "Нефтяные поля Сирии" - это полпроцента американской добычи. Задача Донни - не получить сирийскую нефть, а отжать от нее всяких нищебродов, которым этот от силы миллиард долларов в год что-то решит, хотя бы в логике бабы с возу. На какие деньги, по Вашему, живёт Асад и его структуры все эти годы?
              Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
              даже от продаж "второсортного уралса" американские межнациональные корпорацию имеют прибыль.

              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. Alien From
                Alien From 4 November 2019 20: 18 New
                -4
                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. tesser
                  tesser 4 November 2019 20: 21 New
                  -2
                  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. Alien From
                    Alien From 4 November 2019 20: 33 New
                    -5
                    Accepted))) but I think many people will understand the meaning of the post!
        2. bk0010
          bk0010 4 November 2019 11: 15 New
          +2
          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. Vitaly Tsymbal
            Vitaly Tsymbal 4 November 2019 12: 29 New
            +2
            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. bk0010
              bk0010 4 November 2019 12: 48 New
              -1
              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. Aleks1973
        Aleks1973 4 November 2019 17: 16 New
        0
        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. timokhin-aa
          5 November 2019 15: 41 New
          0
          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.
  • meandr51
    meandr51 4 November 2019 17: 29 New
    0
    It is the same.
  • Armata T-14
    Armata T-14 3 November 2019 18: 40 New
    +7
    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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 19: 10 New
      -3
      Глупости пишите. Даже при "проспанном" первом контрценностном некоторая ударе часть населения РФ и больше половины населения США выживает, а уж если удар был контрсиловым и ограниченным по "выходу", то и речи нет о том, что Вы пишите.
      1. Good_Anonymous
        Good_Anonymous 3 November 2019 20: 23 New
        -6
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        part of the Russian population and more than half of the US population survives


        Это и называется "умрут сотни миллионов человек".
      2. 30hgsa
        30hgsa 3 November 2019 21: 31 New
        +7
        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. tesser
          tesser 4 November 2019 11: 09 New
          -3
          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. Vik ganz
        Vik ganz 4 November 2019 01: 59 New
        +6
        Мало читаешь. Опять таки западные "ядерные игры". После взаимных ударов российского населения останется 20% (хотя может и это враньё территория то большая).
        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. Dude
          Dude 4 November 2019 06: 00 New
          -1
          Quote: Vik Ganz
          Мало читаешь. Опять таки западные "ядерные игры". После взаимных ударов российского населения останется 20% (хотя может и это враньё территория то большая).
          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. tesser
          tesser 4 November 2019 11: 14 New
          -3
          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. timokhin-aa
            5 November 2019 15: 42 New
            +1
            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.
  • bars1
    bars1 3 November 2019 18: 45 New
    +3
    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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 19: 11 New
      +2
      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
        Alf 3 November 2019 21: 36 New
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Amerov can be beaten, but on condition that the troops are trained and equipped properly.

        А самое главное, высшее руководство должно иметь "стальные яйца".
  • Vlad.by
    Vlad.by 3 November 2019 18: 46 New
    +9
    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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 19: 12 New
      -5
      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. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 3 November 2019 19: 36 New
        +6
        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. 30hgsa
          30hgsa 3 November 2019 21: 13 New
          +3
          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. timokhin-aa
            3 November 2019 23: 26 New
            -3
            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.


            Взрывы в экзосфере это "опция", которая реализуется при строго определённых обстоятельствах, а при их ненаступлении - не реализуется.

            I do not want to raise this topic in detail.

            The probability of what you write about is not 100%.
        2. timokhin-aa
          3 November 2019 22: 46 New
          -6
          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. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 4 November 2019 02: 11 New
            +3
            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. Dude
              Dude 4 November 2019 06: 14 New
              0
              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. Lozovik
            Lozovik 4 November 2019 08: 10 New
            +5
            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. Aleks1973
            Aleks1973 4 November 2019 17: 20 New
            +1
            Have you seen the Tu-95 with bombs? Left behind from life ...
      2. Vik ganz
        Vik ganz 4 November 2019 02: 10 New
        +1
        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. tesser
          tesser 4 November 2019 11: 20 New
          -2
          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. Vik ganz
      Vik ganz 4 November 2019 02: 03 New
      +2
      А вот американцы "приучают нас" к маломощным ядерным зарядам. Думают, что мы поведёмся на их авантюру.
      1. Dude
        Dude 4 November 2019 06: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: Vik Ganz
        А вот американцы "приучают нас" к маломощным ядерным зарядам. Думают, что мы поведёмся на их авантюру.

        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
  • Operator
    Operator 3 November 2019 18: 48 New
    +1
    Shaw is such - graphomania, no? laughing
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 19: 23 New
      -7
      Grafomania is to saddle in quiet sadness, due to age-related changes in the nervous system laughing
  • bars1
    bars1 3 November 2019 18: 49 New
    +4
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    It is very difficult to make a bomber. And very, very expensive.

    Если применять бомбардировщик как Вы описали ,,по-американски" то да сложно, а если как носитель крылатых ракет - не сложнее транспортного самолета.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 19: 13 New
      -8
      Why is he like that?
      1. bars1
        bars1 3 November 2019 20: 38 New
        +4
        As a mobile platform for ALCM
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 November 2019 22: 48 New
          -3
          They can be dropped from the transporter through the ramp.

          Such a specialized aircraft can afford only very rich countries.
  • shoroh
    shoroh 3 November 2019 18: 53 New
    +2
    If a conditional Hitler-Russophobe comes to power in the USA, all these scenarios can take place.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 19: 14 New
      +4
      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. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 4 November 2019 02: 22 New
        +2
        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. Dude
          Dude 4 November 2019 06: 35 New
          -1
          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.
          В условиях (частичного) подавления и дезорганизации ПВО - вполне реализуемый сценарий. Протяжённость границ у нас огромна. Ну и, конечно, не просто "сферический" авианалёт "в вакууме"(тм), а как часть комплекса, с применением прочих средств нападения.
          1. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 4 November 2019 10: 19 New
            0
            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. Dude
              Dude 4 November 2019 11: 52 New
              0
              Read carefully:
              Ну и, конечно, не просто "сферический" авианалёт "в вакууме"(тм), а как часть комплекса, с применением прочих средств нападения.
              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. illi
      illi 4 November 2019 11: 14 New
      0
      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. tesser
      tesser 4 November 2019 11: 22 New
      -2
      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.
  • Beringovsky
    Beringovsky 3 November 2019 19: 05 New
    -8
    One of the best articles on VO. Everything is simple, clear and with excellent arguments. Bravo author.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 19: 25 New
      -5
      thank you for rating
      1. Beringovsky
        Beringovsky 3 November 2019 19: 32 New
        -9
        Thank you for the article. Very interesting and useful, unfortunately, there are few of these at VO.
  • shahor
    shahor 3 November 2019 19: 15 New
    -7
    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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 19: 27 New
      +2
      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. shahor
        shahor 3 November 2019 19: 34 New
        -2
        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.
  • A.TOR
    A.TOR 3 November 2019 19: 38 New
    -11
    ... And again Mr. Timokhin wrote an objective and correct article.
    "Проблема" только в том, что в США готовится новый многофункциональный бомбардировщик с принципиально другим уровнем боеготовности и сокращенным до уровня "Раптора" временем подготовки к вылету.
    Вообще никакой "принципиально особой" подготовки в США к ядерной войне с Россией или Китаем не ведется, все тематически подготовленные специалисты Пентагона отдают себе отчет в том, что РФ и - в меньшей степени КНР - с высокой вероятностью применят тем или иным способом ядерное оружие на достаточно ранней стадии конфликта.
    Изменение ядерной парадигмы относительно времен "холодной войны" на практике пока нет.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 22: 49 New
      +1
      Сейчас идёт "прокачка" возможностей по внезапному ядерному удару из режима мирного времени. И это очень опасно.
      1. A.TOR
        A.TOR 4 November 2019 19: 45 New
        -6
        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.
  • Sergey Valov
    Sergey Valov 3 November 2019 20: 00 New
    13
    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. alstr
      alstr 3 November 2019 21: 06 New
      10
      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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 23: 02 New
      +2
      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. Lozovik
        Lozovik 4 November 2019 08: 01 New
        +4
        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. NN52
        NN52 4 November 2019 20: 48 New
        +5
        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 ....
  • AML
    AML 3 November 2019 20: 09 New
    +7
    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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 23: 04 New
      -2
      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.
  • AML
    AML 3 November 2019 20: 15 New
    +6
    Quote: A.TOR

    Вообще никакой "принципиально особой" подготовки в США к ядерной войне с Россией или Китаем не ведется, все тематически подготовленные специалисты Пентагона отдают себе отчет в том, что РФ и - в меньшей степени КНР - с высокой вероятностью применят тем или иным способом ядерное оружие на достаточно ранней стадии конфликта.


    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. A.TOR
      A.TOR 3 November 2019 21: 38 New
      -5
      Да, это "дорога в один конец". Десяток - другой "Чернобылей" сделает огромные пространства не пригодными для жизни на многие десятилетия. ЯО сегодня это некоторая гарантия свести дело к "Версалю"
    2. Dude
      Dude 4 November 2019 06: 45 New
      -1
      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.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 3 November 2019 20: 25 New
    +8
    Я конечно слаб в авиации, всегда считал, что главное преимущество "стратегов" именно в скорости ответки (или нападения). Бомбардировщик может сделать залп из режима боевого дежурства непосредственно возле границ супостата. Более того этот залп достигнет целей гораздо раньше, чем упадут боеголовки от стратегических ракет. Подлетное время ракет никто не отменял. Все прибрежные города США, а также военно-морские базы могут быть уничтожены через 5... 10мин. после "отстрела". Я думаю тут на сайте достаточно специалистов, которые могут освежить данные по поводу "а сколько там ракет в барабане у Ту-160 или Ту-95МС". Но самое страшное, что такой залп очень трудно засечь, поэтому он особенно опасен при ударе по руководству страны и её центрам управления. Нет времени на реакцию. Именно поэтому у англичан и американцев наблюдаются острые приступы диареи, когда Ту-160 пролетают около их берегов. Ибо каждая такая точка на радаре у военных превращается в немаленький радиус вероятного накрытия. А бог его знает что в головах у этих русских?!
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 3 November 2019 21: 28 New
      +5
      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. Dude
        Dude 4 November 2019 06: 53 New
        0
        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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 23: 04 New
      -1
      Moreover, this salvo will reach its targets much earlier than strategic missile warheads.


      No, it is not. ICBMs are faster anyway.
  • Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 3 November 2019 20: 34 New
    -1
    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 ....
  • Berkut24
    Berkut24 3 November 2019 20: 38 New
    10
    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.
    Насколько я помню, на вооружении наших стратегов стоят крылатые ракеты с дальностью действия, не требующей захода в зону ПВО противника. В случае понимания, что война началась стретеги не ждут на "первоклассном аэродроме" команды к взлёту. Они должны в это время уже быть в зоне боевого патрулирования для нанесения удара немедленно, т.е. произвести пуск КР и уходить из зоны уже на какой-то запасной аэродром. Все наши тренировки стратегов указывают на то, что экипажи готовятся к многочасовому барражированию вместе с заправщиками. Так что о технической стороне использования стратегической авиации я с автором не согласен категорически.
    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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 23: 05 New
      -1
      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. Berkut24
        Berkut24 4 November 2019 09: 47 New
        +3
        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. timokhin-aa
          5 November 2019 13: 12 New
          0
          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. Berkut24
            Berkut24 5 November 2019 17: 39 New
            +2
            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.
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 3 November 2019 20: 49 New
    +1
    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. Horon
      Horon 3 November 2019 21: 44 New
      -3
      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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 23: 06 New
      -3
      Technically unfeasible at the moment.
      1. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 4 November 2019 02: 33 New
        +3
        Come on you!
        Feasible in half a kilo! It is technically. But ideologically - scary. Correctly write - control interception is very likely.
        1. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 4 November 2019 20: 19 New
          0
          При современном уровне кодирования, взломать коды на лету (в буквальном смысле) совершенно нереально. А если противник заранее имеет доступ к ядерным кодам, то тоды "Ой" конечно..
    3. Avior
      Avior 4 November 2019 03: 35 New
      -3
      What actually hinders re-targeting a rocket in flight?

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

        Actually, we are talking about bombers and cruise missiles. I'm not alone in the tank laughing
        1. Avior
          Avior 4 November 2019 20: 57 New
          -3
          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.
  • Eug
    Eug 3 November 2019 20: 51 New
    +2
    По поводу перенацеливания запущеных КР - вопрос открытый, по крайней мере опыт "перепрошивки орбитальных мозгов" имеется. Правда, этот опыт остался в Украине у НПО Хартрон, которое в 80-х годах прошлого века успешно провело эту операцию с потерявшим управление орбитальным модулем Квант и не менее успешно занималось разработкой СУ стратегических КР, в том числе и авиационного базирования. Занимались этим (орбитальными и аэродинамическими об'ектами), правда, разные отделы и отделения, было это в условиях мирного времени без противодействия средств РЭБ и уж тем более без воздействия электромагнитного импульса, но, как по мне, если такую задачу ставили разработчики, то она выполнима при наличии на борту КР соответствующей аппаратуры. Если не ставили - прикинуть потребность и реальность выполнения, по результатам либо дооборудовать КР, либо признать нереальность.
    1. 30hgsa
      30hgsa 3 November 2019 21: 05 New
      +8
      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
        Alf 3 November 2019 21: 41 New
        +4
        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. 30hgsa
          30hgsa 3 November 2019 21: 46 New
          +8
          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. timokhin-aa
            3 November 2019 23: 11 New
            -3
            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.

            Допустим по радиоперехвату установлено, что на объекте "Рейнджер" три "птички". Они там будут часов семь. Но точных данных ,что такое "Рейнджер" нету это может быть один из трёх аэродромов. Спутники снесло орбитальными взрывами, сверху не посмотреть, ракет мало, ими можно стрелять только по известным целям. Или их вообще уже нет, все выпущены.

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

            And we?
            1. 30hgsa
              30hgsa 3 November 2019 23: 22 New
              +9
              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. timokhin-aa
                3 November 2019 23: 45 New
                -5
                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. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 4 November 2019 02: 44 New
              +6
              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
        Eug 3 November 2019 22: 01 New
        +1
        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. 30hgsa
          30hgsa 3 November 2019 22: 06 New
          +5
          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. timokhin-aa
            3 November 2019 23: 12 New
            -3
            Will not cover everyone.
            1. 30hgsa
              30hgsa 3 November 2019 23: 28 New
              +6
              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. timokhin-aa
                3 November 2019 23: 46 New
                -3
                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.
  • 30hgsa
    30hgsa 3 November 2019 20: 57 New
    14
    Normal for VO nonsense. The article level is simply below the lowest baseboard.

    Насчет "перенацеливания" и атаки свободно-падающими бомбами... ну возьмем описанный автором случай " разбомбленный аэродром и с него вывозят что-то на грузовиках".
    - 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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 23: 15 New
      -3
      - 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. 30hgsa
        30hgsa 3 November 2019 23: 31 New
        +8
        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. timokhin-aa
          3 November 2019 23: 50 New
          -2
          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. 30hgsa
        30hgsa 3 November 2019 23: 45 New
        +4
        Насчет связи "почти не будет". Ну расскажите мне с помощью чего вы будете наводить на цель стратег в 5000 км от базы после глобального ядерного удара. Станции дальней связи это сооружение вполне себе габаритное и цель вверху списка. Связи на таких расстояниях не будет не почти, а вообще. Круче того, не будет ЖэПэЭс и выходить на точечную цель придется по карте, компасу и ориентирам на местности с соответствующей точностью :)
        1. timokhin-aa
          4 November 2019 02: 36 New
          -4
          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. bk0010
            bk0010 4 November 2019 11: 20 New
            -1
            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. Horon
            Horon 4 November 2019 20: 39 New
            +1
            После глобального ядерного удара, атмосфера в северном полушарии ещё, как минимум, трое суток "звенеть" будет от наведённой радиации! Даже чудом сохранившиеся средства радиосвязи смогут работать не далее нескольких километров. Дым и поднятая пыль и сажа сделают связь проблемной ещё на несколько месяцев, ограничевая связь до прямой видимости. Попробуйте найти специальную литературу по этому вопросу, там много интересного написано!
    2. Avis-bis
      Avis-bis 4 November 2019 07: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: 30hgsa
      Kaptsov something has not been heard for a long time

      Как это "не слышно"? :) Пару дней назад он тут всех учил, что П-38 "Лайтнинг" спроектирован в корне неверно.
  • Arkon
    Arkon 3 November 2019 21: 05 New
    +4
    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.


    Единственно, непонятно: если уж ПВО "взломана" управляемыми ракетами, то что мешает этими же ракетами и "основные цели" уничтожить? Зачем этот огород городить со стратегической авиацией?
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 3 November 2019 21: 07 New
      0
      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.


      Единственно, непонятно: если уж ПВО "взломана" управляемыми ракетами, то что мешает этими же ракетами и "основные цели" уничтожить? Зачем это огород городить со стратегической авиацией?

      The author needs something to explain the contents of the arsenal of this zoo from 60 years. Here and invents these absurdities
      1. 30hgsa
        30hgsa 3 November 2019 21: 41 New
        13
        Зоопарк содержат по принципу "на всякий случай". Чем больше способов доставки ответки - тем меньше шансов, что враг поверит в то, что их сможет все парировать через ПРО или обезоруживающий удар. Если ответка это только МБР то есть опасность, что враг поверит в свою же пропаганду и решит, что его Иджисы и Стандарты зарулят. А вот если Через космос МБР из шахт, из тайги с колес, из под воды с РПКСН, с неизвестнйо станции в зажопинске...а еще под водой где то шарятся десяток посейдонов с кучей мегатонн и на 100% непонятно что с ними и сколько, а в воздухе ту-160 с КР которые пойдут после высотных подрывов зарядов, а еще просто КР которые могут где-то лететь по неизвестному маршруту - вот тогда страшно и как-то своя ПРО уже не авторитет. Это все при том, что чисто теоретически шахтные МБР дешевле и эффективнее всего описанного. Но задача то не угробить мир а напугать врага, чтобы он стремался применить ЯО первым.
      2. timokhin-aa
        3 November 2019 23: 17 New
        -3
        Strange, in the USA for some reason they think as an author.

        There are probably no brains.
        1. Horon
          Horon 4 November 2019 20: 43 New
          +1
          Did they report to you that they think so?
    2. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 23: 16 New
      -1
      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. Arkon
        Arkon 4 November 2019 10: 06 New
        +1
        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.

        По мне, так стратегическая авиация просто добавляет устойчивости всей системе ядерного сдерживания. Но именно сдерживания, потому как атаковать превентивно с её помощью ну никак не выйдет. Только как доп.площадки для старта ракет. Потому и применяют сейчас стратеги исключительно в локальных конфликтах и "не совсем по назначению".

        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. bk0010
          bk0010 4 November 2019 11: 21 New
          0
          Quote: Arkon
          Mmmm ... The strategist will fly to bomb PGRK? A little tense, doesn't it seem?
          B-2 did just for this
          1. Arkon
            Arkon 4 November 2019 17: 17 New
            0
            Да? Не знал. Но, видимо, речь всё же шла о самостоятельном преодолении ПВО и об ударе в первых порядках. Тогда ещё была иллюзия "невидимости". Если же задача самостоятельного прорыва ПВО становится неактуальной ввиду явной невозможности, то и задача "охоты" за передвижными комплексами снимается. Разве нет?
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 4 November 2019 18: 30 New
              +1
              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. timokhin-aa
                5 November 2019 13: 18 New
                0
                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. Vlad.by
                  Vlad.by 5 November 2019 19: 35 New
                  0
                  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. Arkon
        Arkon 4 November 2019 10: 31 New
        0
        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 ...
  • Alex013
    Alex013 3 November 2019 21: 37 New
    0
    And this is Tu-95MS, our days ... Diaghilev
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 23: 17 New
      -2
      Yes, this is Diaghilev.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 3 November 2019 21: 43 New
    +1
    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.

    СМИ это всего лишь пена на поверхности от бурления в животах реальных правителей. А военных не волнует зыбкое и изменчивое "реальное положение вещей" - главное возможность и она есть.
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 3 November 2019 22: 20 New
      +8
      “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.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 3 November 2019 22: 02 New
    +1
    Quote: 30hgsa
    Kaptsov had not heard something for a long time.

    Обижаете! Он занят анализом излишнего водоизмещения в корпусе американского истребителя времён ВМВ. Статья про Лайтнинг Р-38 в разделе "Вооружение" от 04.04.2019г.: https://topwar.ru/164243-propavshee-vodoizmeschenie-istrebitelja-p-38-lajtning.html
    1. 30hgsa
      30hgsa 3 November 2019 22: 10 New
      +4
      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. :)
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 3 November 2019 22: 03 New
    +2
    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. Inspector
      Inspector 3 November 2019 22: 57 New
      -5
      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. timokhin-aa
        4 November 2019 02: 39 New
        -3
        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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 23: 19 New
      -1
      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.
  • Flinkfan
    Flinkfan 3 November 2019 22: 17 New
    +3
    "Ну что сказать, ну что сказать,
    So arranged people
    Want to know, want to know
    Желают знать что будет..."

    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. timokhin-aa
      3 November 2019 23: 20 New
      -4
      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.

      Но есть ещё Б-1 и Б-2, и на подходе "Рейдер".
      1. Flinkfan
        Flinkfan 4 November 2019 01: 18 New
        -3
        А в чём проблема с "Рейдером"? Ну нет его, и хрен знает когда будет, а когда будет, то что это будет тоже никто не знает.
        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.

        Отправим в тан очередного "дейнекина", он им разгонит этот "Рейдер" до гиперзвука на высоте 50 метров, домой приедет всех научит, как это надо делать...У них же на бомбардировщиках любой, как захочет, летать может.
        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.
        Первый ни дня не служил, второй от непосильной службы по месту жительства, от "тягот и лишений" свинтил до срока.

        "Б-1" говоришь, комментарии-то прочесть нельзя? А это, между прочим, самое главное в любом научном труде. Если что, у нас Ту-22 имеются, о них там доходчиво прописано.

        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.

        ЗЫ Кстати, нынче заметка в "Боевой листок" по какой цене идёт?
  • xax
    xax 3 November 2019 22: 33 New
    +1
    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.
    И вот для сего дежурства крылатые ракеты явно лучше, чем "стары добрые" свободнопадающие чушки.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 3 November 2019 22: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    200 miles is 350 km, for the Kyrgyz Republic it is not 5 - 10 minutes of flight, but 30.

    Это если пускать с расстояния в 200миль, а не 150 миль (дальность аэробаллистической ракеты Х15). 50 миль бомбардировщик на скорости 2 Маха преодолеет за 3 минуты, оставшиеся 150 миль ракеты Х15 со скоростью в 5 Махов пролетят за 3,5 мин. - итого 7,5 мин. Накинем на погрешность расстояния до цели, а так же экипажу и ракетам на "разгон" ещё 2 минутки - тогда 9,5мин. Фуух... уложились в 10 мин.
    Но Ту-160 может нести и более дальнобойные ракеты, правда их скорость дозвуковая, зато дальность 3500км (Х55) - 5000км (Х-101 или Х-102). Тут и внутри материка не скроешься, да и барражировать можно уже не в 200 милях, а за пределами радиуса действия перехватчиков. Вот "эти" штуки уже будут лететь 30 мин.
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    “The main opportunity and it is” is practically nonexistent, see above.

    Военные не могут позволить себе так думать. Если военный начинает оперировать понятием "практически", "фактически", "наверняка" - то это не военный, а политик, причем безграмотный.
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 3 November 2019 23: 04 New
      +6
      A barricading strategist with nuclear weapons on board in the trouble-free range of enemy fighter aircraft .... No comment.
  • Inspector
    Inspector 3 November 2019 22: 53 New
    -4
    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
      Alf 3 November 2019 23: 28 New
      +3
      Quote: Inspector
      The problem of retaliation is solved only by Poseidon - the tsunami.

      Take a break with your Poseidon, Academician Sakharov.
  • maxcor1974
    maxcor1974 3 November 2019 22: 57 New
    +3
    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?

    Автор, вам сценарии к фильмам Марвела писать. Какая "второстепенная цель"? Ядерная война, это война на уничтожение. Планы, как наши, так и американские не предусматривают частичного применения ЯО по 1-5-10 целям. ЯО - оружие судного дня, никаких чудиков вывозящих остатки "какого недобитого" арсенала не будет. Пожалуйста, не пишите больше ничего, вам лучше в макдональдсе булочками торговать.
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 November 2019 02: 40 New
      -3
      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.
  • Steen
    Steen 3 November 2019 23: 02 New
    +1
    The video, frankly, was very impressive.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 3 November 2019 23: 03 New
    +3
    У меня нет уверенности что мы вообще имеем некую здравую конкретную стратегию по ведению ядерной войны. То что я наблюдаю мне видится аналогией с войнами древности - когда разного рода варвары против римских легионов вылезали с размалеванными дикими лицами, грызли щиты, потрясали топорами и ревели страшными голосами, а потом бежали в атаку с голыми торсами . Во всем этом была своя стратегия -сродни нашей стратегии "ядерного устрашения" - вот одна беда, если враг не устрашался и не улепетывал сверкая пятками, при добегании до построений легионеров всегда "возникали проблемы". У меня есть опасения, что в нашей стратегии сейчас несколько переборщили с аксиомами и элементом устрашения. Это не отменяет мощи нашего оружия и отдельных его образцов..однако может наводить нашего противника на мысли ,аналогичные вышеописанным. Со всеми вытекающими..
    Что касается самолетов - по этой самой проблеме "внятности" нашей стратегии ядерной войны, мы и не наблюдаем достаточной внятности на этом направлении. Мне кажется наши стратеги не особо верят в то, что в случае "дня Х" наши самолеты долетят до территории США ..
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 3 November 2019 23: 03 New
    -1
    In the first photo - non-optimal mode dvigunov. At the optimum, the flame is blue.
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 November 2019 02: 41 New
      -4
      Well, at low altitude flight. This is an optimal mode for NK-32.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 4 November 2019 13: 54 New
        0
        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.
  • Inspector
    Inspector 3 November 2019 23: 04 New
    +2
    The war will not be between countries !!! And between NATO and the Russian Federation.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 3 November 2019 23: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    A barricading strategist with nuclear weapons on board in the trouble-free range of enemy fighter aircraft .... No comment.

    Это правильно. Иногда лучше молчать чем говорить. Только понятие "досягаемости истребительной авиации" к сожалению (или к счастью?) необходимо применять с поправкой на "вероятность перехвата".
  • RAM
    RAM 3 November 2019 23: 14 New
    -1
    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
      Alf 3 November 2019 23: 32 New
      +3
      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. Golovan Jack
        Golovan Jack 3 November 2019 23: 46 New
        -3
        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. timokhin-aa
          4 November 2019 02: 42 New
          -1
          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
        RAM 4 November 2019 11: 22 New
        -2
        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.
  • JD1979
    JD1979 3 November 2019 23: 22 New
    +4
    Блеск! Какой полет фантазии! А какая логика! Женщины нервно курят))) Я давно так не ржал над попытками очередного "эксперта" уровня блондинка с ютьюба)) выдать свои фантазии за аналитику))). Я как в живую представил, как экипаж стратега прорывается к цели на своем самолете с ядерной бомбой на бреющем полете, успешно сбрасывает изделие на колонну перевозящую вражеские ядренбатоны и с осознанием глубокого удовлетворения от выполненной задачи сгорает вместе с самолётом в ядерном взрыве успев показать напоследок врагу средний палец))).
    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. timokhin-aa
      4 November 2019 02: 43 New
      -3
      And what about a nuclear bomb dropped from an airplane burning an airplane? Here is the news.
      1. JD1979
        JD1979 4 November 2019 09: 51 New
        +4
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And what about a nuclear bomb dropped from an airplane burning an airplane? Here is the news.

        Смотря на ваше выражение "искреннего" недоумения, вспоминается окончание старого анекдота - чукча не читатель, чукча - писатель.)) То есть, вы не смогли понять смысл не только написанного вами но и моих 250 букв))). Вы полстатьи топите за ядрен батоны на стратегах вместо ракет, за прорывы к цели на сверхмалых высотах как Лансеры, т. е. исходя из своего же бреда - сброс спецбоеприпаса на сверхмалой высоте, вы допускаете что носитель уцелеет? )))) ну тогда извините - медицина тут бессильна.
        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. timokhin-aa
          5 November 2019 13: 14 New
          0
          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. JD1979
            JD1979 5 November 2019 21: 51 New
            +1
            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. bk0010
              bk0010 5 November 2019 22: 02 New
              0
              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.
  • maxcor1974
    maxcor1974 3 November 2019 23: 27 New
    +4
    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. 30hgsa
      30hgsa 3 November 2019 23: 35 New
      +5
      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. maxcor1974
        maxcor1974 3 November 2019 23: 40 New
        +5
        hi And there will already be nothing at all. I am laughing so much tonight
  • maxcor1974
    maxcor1974 3 November 2019 23: 36 New
    +5
    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?
  • Golovan Jack
    Golovan Jack 3 November 2019 23: 53 New
    +5
    I can not deny myself the pleasure.



    What is called - replenished. People said goodbye to aviation, and ... said goodbye request
  • evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru
    evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru 3 November 2019 23: 54 New
    -2
    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
      Alf 4 November 2019 00: 39 New
      +5
      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 ...
  • Treatises
    Treatises 4 November 2019 00: 20 New
    -2
    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. timokhin-aa
      4 November 2019 02: 44 New
      -1
      Earth will fly on the celestial axis!
  • Radikal
    Radikal 4 November 2019 00: 42 New
    -1
    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