Hypersonic Vanguard shown to US inspectors: contractual openness


The Russian Ministry of Defense continues to demonstrate unprecedented openness to foreign military observers. Today it became known that Russia showed the American inspectors the Avangard hypersonic missile system. It is a complex with a hypersonic glider winged block.


This is the latest hypersonic weapon, which will begin to enter the Russian Armed Forces in December of this year - in one of the parts of the Orenburg region.

The military department notes that this kind of demonstration of the latest missile technology took place as part of our country's compliance with the letters of the START Treaty (to reduce strategic offensive weapons). The openness of this agreement is demonstrated, incidentally, against the backdrop of statements in the United States about its readiness to withdraw from it.

The message gives TASS:

On the territory of the Russian Federation, the American inspection team conducted a demonstration of the Avangard missile system with a hypersonic glider winged unit.

The Russian military showed UR-100Н UTX missiles to their American ICBM counterparts, which are equipped with the same nuclear planning unit. This whole system is called the "Vanguard", being a truly advanced strategic weapon.

At the first stage, the Russian Armed Forces will receive the 2 “Vanguard” regiment, each of which will have 6 silo-based ICBMs. Recall that a hypersonic unit is capable of speeds above 20 M (sound speeds).

Against this background, the question arises: is the American side ready to admit Russian inspectors to its facilities where the latest weapons are being developed or are there copies?
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Operator 26 November 2019 15: 38 New
    • 20
    • 7
    +13
    At the disposal of the Strategic Missile Forces over thirty UR-100N UTTH bully
    1. 210ox 26 November 2019 15: 42 New
      • 20
      • 4
      +16
      So what. They showed them the launch container at the position.
      1. Fibrizio 26 November 2019 16: 51 New
        • 5
        • 13
        -8
        I agree with the thesis.
        In a similar way, we demonstrated a missile launch container and convinced our NATO colleagues that this missile had nothing to do with the INF, because "they are written on that TTX plate."

        I think everyone has everything for a long time already, and if not explicitly, it can be quickly upgraded.
        1. bulvas 26 November 2019 17: 28 New
          • 7
          • 2
          +5
          Now they will declare that during the show they saw violations of the START treaty.

          1. hrych 27 November 2019 04: 42 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: bulvas
            spotted violations of the START treaty

            The main thing here is to show that this is not a bluff, but a product in iron
      2. Prisoner 26 November 2019 20: 17 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Enough for now. God forbid they see everything, by the way, and us, too. winked Better not run up. It seems to me that such events are the equivalent of the order "stop, I will shoot!" what Well, a hint again, they say, "guys, let's live together."
    2. Alexander Petrov1 26 November 2019 15: 45 New
      • 10
      • 6
      +4
      In vain, the American inspectors were upset, because they still have to sleep, and there are sheer nightmares about nuclear strikes in the United States, just like in the movie Terminator 2 at the mother of the young hero of the film ...
      1. Hunter 2 26 November 2019 15: 52 New
        • 12
        • 7
        +5
        Drove the Mattresses! laughing Now serenades will go - that Russia violates Everything and Everywhere! But where exactly - We won’t tell you! yes
      2. Voyager 26 November 2019 18: 53 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        By the way, I’ve recently revised: all the same amazing films even today and repulse any modern fantasy action movie with meaning. Moreover, the first, the second.
        1. Alexander Petrov1 26 November 2019 18: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          What did you want, filmed Great (no offense) Jews and collected these Great films-works of many billions of dollars and this for Normal people of directors and businessmen should be a challenge to follow in the whole World and even in Russia ...
    3. Vol4ara 26 November 2019 16: 34 New
      • 6
      • 4
      +2
      Against this background, the question arises: is the American side ready to admit Russian inspectors to its facilities where the latest weapons are being developed or are there copies?

      It’s a very stupid question, we did it on our own initiative, and did it in order to show the potential enemy that in case of what we can. In fact, they were made in order to cool hotheads in Congress and the Pentagon. Americans don’t need to show us anything, because the pressure on them does not threaten us
      1. DenZ 26 November 2019 17: 23 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Quote: Vol4ara
        Americans don’t need to show us anything, because the pressure on them does not threaten us

        Well, I totally disagree. With our whining, unfounded accusations (we all know that they are unfounded), fakes, Russophobia, and again scandals in sports (only today the IOC blamed the Russian government for them), the Americans and their allies are already at war with us, and here we are completely no time to relax. They spit on our complacency and openness. With our openness to them, we are more likely to find unnecessary reasons for them to moral abuse of us. And to weaken the enemy morally, isn’t there a prelude to physically destroy him?
    4. Alexander Petrov1 26 November 2019 17: 58 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      That's right that they showed that they were afraid and respected ...
  2. MoJloT 26 November 2019 15: 38 New
    • 23
    • 21
    +2
    Hypersonic Vanguard Revealed to US Inspectors: Unprecedented Openness
    This is not openness, this is unprecedented stupidity.
    1. Nastia makarova 26 November 2019 15: 49 New
      • 13
      • 12
      +1
      very true what they showed, now let the turnips scratch
      1. Chit 26 November 2019 16: 09 New
        • 15
        • 47
        -32
        Do you think that if the United States has a military budget of at least 15 times the Russian budget and does not boast from each pillar and from each iron about its new military technology, then they can only scratch their turnips?
        1. Sky strike fighter 26 November 2019 16: 20 New
          • 30
          • 9
          +21
          Budgets are not at war. Armies are at war. A budget is an opportunity to buy more or build bases around the world and cut giants of the American military-industrial complex from this budget, buying everything at fabulous prices. Budgets are just possibilities, another thing is how to handle them, wisely or not. Compare the budget of the United States and the Taliban. Who remains in Afghanistan and who leaves? An example of Syria. How many planes and troops were there, how many planes and coalition troops, and what came out of it? If there were all as simple as you say, then on a mid-budget to hoist the winners of wars.
          1. Vol4ara 26 November 2019 16: 41 New
            • 9
            • 32
            -23
            Quote: Sky Strike fighter
            Budgets are not at war. Armies are at war. A budget is an opportunity to buy more or build bases around the world and cut giants of the American military-industrial complex from this budget, buying everything at fabulous prices. Budgets are just possibilities, another thing is how to handle them, wisely or not. Compare the budget of the United States and the Taliban. Who remains in Afghanistan and who leaves? An example of Syria. How many planes and troops were there, how many planes and coalition troops, and what came out of it? If there were all as simple as you say, then on a mid-budget to hoist the winners of wars.

            The stupidity is immense. Compare the budgets of NATO and Yugoslavia, and then the budgets of Iraq, Libya. Some armies are fighting the legacy of the USSR in leaky pants, while others sprinkle them on top with bombs without steaming, without even introducing ground forces, simply destroying the economy. The Taliban are bearded uncles who hide in the bushes and grow poppies, there is no question of any war of budgets.
            1. bk316 26 November 2019 17: 35 New
              • 10
              • 3
              +7
              Some armies are fighting the legacy of the USSR in leaky pants, while others sprinkle them on top with bombs without steaming, without even introducing ground forces, simply destroying the economy.

              SO IT IS JUST NOT ABOUT THE BUDGETS AND ABOUT THE ARMY.
              Now, if they would fall asleep with their stocks or iPhones, then, yes, about the budget laughing
        2. mark2 26 November 2019 17: 57 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          How are they not bragging? And a week does not pass, as in the media appear quotes of talking US heads about another wunderwafer.
        3. Nastia makarova 27 November 2019 07: 08 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          as they said correctly, that the budget is not the most important thing in wars, they have a large budget, only they spend its main part not on the army, but on all garbage
      2. Arkon 26 November 2019 18: 23 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Quote: Nastia Makarova
        very true what they showed, now let the turnips scratch


        Yeah. Let them look at "what cannot be." laughing
    2. carstorm 11 26 November 2019 16: 14 New
      • 9
      • 9
      0
      and what is stupid? if I show you a laptop, for example, how do you know what filling it has besides my words?) any similar step goes through a bunch of analysis and opinions and the consequences are always calculated. and not for amers it is shown, but rather for countries of the same Europe. we are open and comply with contracts. and if strategic offensive arms fail, it’s not according to our actions.
    3. Alexander Petrov1 26 November 2019 16: 15 New
      • 11
      • 7
      +4
      As for the openness and display of the latest latest weapons, for example, Stalin - as Hitler said - “If I knew that the USSR had a T-34 tank, then I would never attack the USSR in 1941” ...
      1. Sidor Amenpodestovich 26 November 2019 16: 40 New
        • 9
        • 2
        +7
        The quote you quoted became interesting, climbed on the Internet.
        He found Hitler’s words, where he says that if he knew how many tanks the USSR had, he wouldn’t attack.
        Can you give your source?
        1. Alexander Petrov1 26 November 2019 16: 41 New
          • 2
          • 4
          -2
          A lot of World historians on different channels talked about this from our Culture to the Discovery Channel ...
          1. Sidor Amenpodestovich 26 November 2019 16: 45 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            Alas, I did not find any mention of the T-34 in this context. Perhaps the words of the one whom it is better not to call once again were unknowingly distorted.
            1. Alexander Petrov1 26 November 2019 16: 50 New
              • 2
              • 3
              -1
              I personally heard that on Discovery Chanell and in other programs, including Russian ...
              1. Sidor Amenpodestovich 26 November 2019 16: 53 New
                • 5
                • 2
                +3
                In no case do not question your words. But, unfortunately, my rummaging on the Internet does not confirm them. However, this does not mean that they are incorrect. The Internet is still a dump.
                1. Alexander Petrov1 26 November 2019 16: 57 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Well, no matter how we treat this scum and the rapist Hitler, the whole World can confirm whoever he is, but it’s certainly to our deep regret that he’s not a fool and gave his report back ...
          2. Fibrizio 26 November 2019 17: 00 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            We have a lot of “experts” unfortunately, but they didn’t go further than “Memoirs and Reflections”.
            If you are interested in who said what, you can read Kurt Von Tippelskirch. He is not the ultimate truth, but his sources can be checked if desired. + fresh look for a Russian person.
            In general, educational reading.
            1. Sidor Amenpodestovich 26 November 2019 17: 21 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              You probably mean his "History of the Second World War."
              1. Fibrizio 26 November 2019 17: 30 New
                • 1
                • 4
                -3
                Yes. Great book for me. Something between a textbook and a literary work. It covers what the USSR did not talk about at all, or was mentioned as a fact, no more.
                For example, I don’t remember at all that I would have been told a word about the landing of allies in Italy at school.
                Then I was sure that the first landing was in Normandy (the one that was not thrown into the water, I mean).
            2. Alexander Petrov1 26 November 2019 17: 22 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Well, remember our displays after Stalin under Khrushchev and the satellite with an intercontinental missile and medium missiles on Red Square and the Tsar bomb and how they helped to frighten the United States during the Caribbean crisis, if Stalin so openly threatened with the latest weapons like T-34, long-range Pe-8 (But Germany didn’t have such Pe-8 long-range aircraft at the beginning of the war, and this predicted their defeat due to our evacuation of the military industry from the Urals), as well as the latest fighters and the best in World War II, according to Western experts like Yak, Mig La Cat If they were not inferior to the German, then he would hardly have attacked in 1941 ...
            3. Sibiriya 26 November 2019 18: 06 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              I recommend reading Isaev’s books on the Second World War. Also on the Internet there are a lot of his video lectures.
        2. Flooding 26 November 2019 17: 01 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          It will be difficult to reproduce the exact quote.
          Since, as far as I know, she sounded in a conversation.
          But the meaning was somewhat different: "if I knew how many tanks the USSR had."
          German intelligence made a mistake in analyzing the number of Soviet armored vehicles.
          1. Alexander Petrov1 26 November 2019 17: 40 New
            • 3
            • 5
            -2
            No, you are wrong, Hitler was referring to the best medium tank of the Second World War T-34, because he knew the old T-26s and did not take them seriously, and he never saw the T-34s and even ordered them to be copied in 1941, but This was not suitable for Germany because of our diesel engine, since in Reich there was no capacity to produce a sufficient amount of solarium (it went 90% to submarines), and tanks and cars drove synthetic gasoline from coal ...
            1. Flooding 26 November 2019 18: 04 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Why argue if you can look on the Internet and find out.
              1. Alexander Petrov1 26 November 2019 18: 09 New
                • 2
                • 7
                -5
                What is there to argue, this is being held in the first year at a seedy institute ...
                1. Flooding 26 November 2019 18: 16 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Well, I'm sorry, I was not there.
                  Don’t bother, you still won’t find confirmation of your words.
            2. Vladimir_2U 27 November 2019 05: 57 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              What set of stamps, you still forgot about ShKAS in the imperial chancellery.
    4. Alex Nevs 26 November 2019 16: 43 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      C'mon .. Do you exclude the possibility of desa? Oh well .
    5. Lesorub 26 November 2019 17: 55 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The Russian Ministry of Defense continues to show unprecedented openness to foreign military observers. Today it became known that Russia showed the American inspectors the Avangard hypersonic missile system

      Yes, indeed, the Americans do not really "show" us the latest developments (from the word at all) - I don’t understand why our Ministry of Defense is showing such a lack of convergence - showing "hypersonic missiles" ??!
      1. Dmitry Donskoy 26 November 2019 21: 04 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        When I served in the Strategic Missile Forces on the Topol-M, the Americans came to our unit with the inspection of the Americans. They were not interested in how much they were armed with and what (they already knew). But they opened all the auxiliary buildings and examined for if they were hiding we are there unaccounted for rocket yes
    6. Beringovsky 26 November 2019 21: 52 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Rather unprecedented unscrupulousness. Ready to hand over to the "partners" anything.
  3. voyaka uh 26 November 2019 15: 41 New
    • 12
    • 7
    +5
    Under the strategic arms reduction treaty, both parties are required to demonstrate their strategic weapons when they begin to be put into service. When the Americans begin to replace their Minuteman 3, the Russians will also inspect their mines.
    1. Zaurbek 26 November 2019 15: 43 New
      • 23
      • 0
      +23
      ... if by then America does not withdraw from START
  4. cloud catcher 26 November 2019 15: 44 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Our world looks like a decrepit house -
    The rafters settle low ...
    Friend, you walk too proudly.
    Bend over! Then there will be no risk!
    They will not be able to pierce their heads
    Decaying floors ...
    "I'm ready to break my head,
    But I don't want to go hunching! ”
  5. Nikolay87 26 November 2019 15: 45 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    We ourselves have not seen them. As for the Americans, they are ready to hack an agreement on an open sky. Knowing the Americans, it probably was like this: Show us the weapons and we will consider whether to renew the INF Treaty and whether to keep START-3 .... but first show.
    1. Starover_Z 26 November 2019 15: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Against this background, the question arises: is the American side ready to admit Russian inspectors to its facilities where the latest weapons are being developed or are there copies?

      They have one, constant answer to such a question:

      And to this we have nothing to add!
  6. Sky strike fighter 26 November 2019 15: 45 New
    • 4
    • 6
    -2
    Hypersonic Vanguard Revealed to US Inspectors: Unprecedented Openness

    Unprecedented stupidity.
    The Russian military showed UR-100N UTTX U.S. ICBM colleagues, who are equipped with the same nuclear planning unit.

    Although .... If externally only the UR-100N UTTKh ICBM was shown, and not the planning unit itself, then all the way.
    Against this background, the question arises: is the American side ready to admit Russian inspectors to its facilities where the latest weapons are being developed or are there copies?

    Stupid question. Of course not. We are their main enemies. What kind of openness can the enemy be talking about?
    1. Sidor Amenpodestovich 26 November 2019 16: 20 New
      • 13
      • 2
      +11
      Now Americans are sure that at least Vanguard is not a bluff. And since it’s not a bluff, it means not a bluff and everything else (laser, BPPA, rocket with unlimited range).
      What can they understand by looking at Vanguard? What materials is it made of? No. How is it managed? Also extremely unlikely.
      Only the shape that they could have imagined rightly, since the laws of aerodynamics in the United States are the same as in Russia.
      1. DeathFromBelow 26 November 2019 18: 24 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        And why so sure that they don’t know all this? The military knows about each other ten times more than what they say.
        1. Sidor Amenpodestovich 26 November 2019 18: 37 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Our number 16 is with you, to paraphrase the unforgettable Gleb Yegorych.
      2. Voyager 26 November 2019 18: 56 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Sydor Amenpospestovich
        What can they understand by looking at Vanguard? What materials is it made of? No. How is it managed? Also extremely unlikely.

        Before all this, at least in theory, you can catch up if you just see what this planning hypersonic unit looks like in reality. Having a theory and foundation is already much easier to reproduce a similar device.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. 30hgsa 26 November 2019 16: 36 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      The task of the strategic deterrence forces, of which the vanguard is a part, is the deterrence so that the enemy pisses and preferably fights too. To do this, the missiles rolled along Red Square, for this they are now showing the vanguard, a superweapon about which no one knows and in which they do not believe does not solve the containment tasks.
    3. bk316 26 November 2019 17: 37 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Stupid question. Of course not. We are their main enemies. What kind of openness can the enemy be talking about?

      Stupid answer. Read the START Treaty.
    4. Voyager 26 November 2019 18: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This is the question, what exactly was shown and in how much detail?
    5. Beringovsky 26 November 2019 21: 57 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Why are you surprised? Our government and Atlas rocket engines are selling to them, with which they launch their military satellites into space, against us.
      Partners are the same.
  7. The leader of the Redskins 26 November 2019 15: 52 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    The deal is more valuable then money. If you had to, then you need to show. At least not ashamed.
    1. Sky strike fighter 26 November 2019 15: 59 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Only these agreements seem to be the only ones we are observing. what crying
  8. Alsur 26 November 2019 16: 11 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: MoJloT
    Hypersonic Vanguard Revealed to US Inspectors: Unprecedented Openness
    This is not openness, this is unprecedented stupidity.

    I do not agree in principle. Soviet paranoid secrecy, in fact, was from their own citizens, but in the American press, photos and drawings of Soviet weapons were very often printed. And in the USSR, I would get a deadline if the photos were posted somewhere. There must be rationality and expediency in everything. You need to protect design information and constantly improve weapons. Otherwise, one day someone will steal a new model or the enemy will get to the battlefield and the secret will cease to be a secret. And from the contemplation of a launch complex or container, a lot will not change.
    1. Beringovsky 26 November 2019 22: 02 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      Soviet paranoid secrecy, in fact, was from their own citizens,

      And today’s from whom? Or showed the Russians the Vanguard? No.
      But the amers showed.
      And they treat us more with cartoons.
  9. Vkd dvk 26 November 2019 16: 12 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Quote: MoJloT
    Hypersonic Vanguard Revealed to US Inspectors: Unprecedented Openness
    This is not openness, this is unprecedented stupidity.

    A knife hidden in a pocket and not shown to the victim will not scare. But it costs only from afar .... how the point will come into a convulsive movement.
    Moreover, if you show only the PART, the victim’s imagination will draw SUCH ......
    And to Orenburg, Altai, where there are many mines, you still need to get there. Our territories, sizes, rescued us many times from any enemy.
  10. Thrifty 26 November 2019 16: 13 New
    • 0
    • 6
    -6
    Why throw beads in front of these. ... ???? How far can our power go in unnecessary exits? Maybe they’ll also be given a set of documentation for Avangard ???
  11. Starper-xnumx 26 November 2019 16: 14 New
    • 4
    • 8
    -4
    Cartoons again showed? Or in real life they want to check "gentlemen, everything is lost" ..
    1. Sky strike fighter 26 November 2019 16: 29 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      It's just that one of the American cartoons of his childhood did not grow up. All that is interesting is shown. All the cartoon.
    2. Aerodrome 26 November 2019 18: 04 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Starper-777
      Cartoons again showed? Or in real life they want to check "gentlemen, everything is lost" ..

      Hi Meehan! next reincarnation? banned for drinking on the site again? tongue
  12. knn54 26 November 2019 16: 25 New
    • 3
    • 7
    -4
    “In 1957, the TU-130DP, an unmanned planning aircraft, was developed and tested. The aircraft was lifted on an R-12 rocket to an altitude of 80-100 km, then it was separated from the carrier and transferred to a planning flight. The target could be at a distance of 4000 km, and the DP speed reached 10 Mach. "
    A deep bow to our fathers and grandfathers, who left the groundwork for many years to come.
    1. 30hgsa 26 November 2019 16: 33 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Well, for sure, the training manual was changed. They used to say that all these are cartoons, now that these are Soviet developments of the 60s :)))
      1. knn54 26 November 2019 17: 06 New
        • 2
        • 5
        -3
        -Changed the training manual ...
        Some believe that this is due to sanctions, you want to live, be able to spin.
        With very scarce financial injections and a shortage of personnel, it is simply unrealistic to create something significant with "0" in a short time. As an example, the PAK YES project, which went to the second ten.
    2. KCA
      KCA 26 November 2019 17: 22 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Designed? Even the mockup did not fly anywhere further than the wind tunnel, the mockup of the BOR at least was put into orbit and brought down later
  13. 30hgsa 26 November 2019 16: 32 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Interestingly, Putin’s once-popular joke about Putin’s cartoons is still popular? Or have they changed the training manual in the State Department?
    1. St Petrov 26 November 2019 17: 00 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      you are offending the patriots-high-level life of the VO site now. This audience issued a verdict about cartoons and will win. After all, it is known that under Putin Russia is heading into the abyss, starving and destitute - what is the construction of missiles, bridges and tanks with airplanes?

      The last organ without salt is eaten up.
      1. Aerodrome 26 November 2019 18: 06 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: c-Petrov
        without salt eat up.

        Well, for you it's just "chupa chups" ...
        1. St Petrov 26 November 2019 18: 26 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Well, for you it's just "chupa chups" ...

          did you decide to measure yourself here? not worth it.

          1. Aerodrome 26 November 2019 18: 30 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: c-Petrov
            Well, for you it's just "chupa chups" ...

            did you decide to measure yourself here? not worth it. you are so unique on this resource. Although not a fact of course. You, patriots of a high-standard of living, are somehow similar to each other

            uh no ... I don't need your "glory"! your pseudo-patriotism is known on the site! you are a mountain for the bourgeoisie, because you yourself ... apparently. tongue
            1. St Petrov 26 November 2019 18: 32 New
              • 1
              • 3
              -2
              you are a mountain for the bourgeoisie

              I burn with terpered-waffle-latent revolutionaries. therefore you are offended by me
              Well, not surprised. Here you have a whole list of such saddened
  14. shinobi 26 November 2019 16: 55 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The act of intimidation has been carried out. We are waiting for the screech in their media. By the power of the screech we will judge the effectiveness of the scare. In war, as in war.
  15. faterdom 26 November 2019 17: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Correctly. In the United States, there is such a disagreement that to convince yourself of something, it is not politicians who have driven themselves into the framework of inadequacy, but representatives of the Pentagon, a potential recipient of the “Vanguards” out of turn. And Trump will be there, or some Bloomberg ... they’ve already lived in any case, it’s all purple for them.
    But the guys from all sorts of unsurpassed “Forces” and “Navy” there are not so indifferent. Better to let them look here, so as not to see THIS at home.
    1. St Petrov 26 November 2019 17: 04 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      I think it would be clearer to show intelligence the coordinates of that heavenly place where the elite thinks to sniff during armageddon. It’s possible to pull back with the good old Yars - in which case
      1. Aerodrome 26 November 2019 18: 32 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: c-Petrov
        I think it would be clearer to show intelligence the coordinates of that heavenly place where the elite thinks to sniff during armageddon. It’s possible to pull back with the good old Yars - in which case

        so you recently stood behind the "Elite" mountain! against the bloody gebni and all that! what happened? it turned out until the retirement? wassat
        1. St Petrov 26 November 2019 18: 34 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          against the bloody gebni and all that!

          you mixed everything up, but that's fine.
  16. bootlegger 26 November 2019 17: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I do not really understand one point.
    On the UR-100N, in combination with a reduction in the size of the warheads, it was possible to place a warhead on it with 6 individual guidance units with a capacity of 550 kt each. The Vanguard block is installed on these missiles in the amount of one piece.
    Is it worth it? Will the quality interrupt the trump card of quantity? With all the desire to shoot down 6 blocks is much more difficult than one even if actively maneuvering. And even if they didn’t bring him down at all, the task of knocking down all 6 combat units was not at all real. With all the false goals and so on.
    Does it make sense to fence a garden with such an unfavorable ratio of 6 to 1?
    1. mark2 26 November 2019 18: 10 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      6 blocks - 6 goals. One block one goal. Six blocks one large city or six small. Vanguard as special forces in the army is one goal but important.
      The unit not only maneuvers but also flies too fast.
      They will detect, but they will not be able to bring down. No missiles faster than this-do not catch up. Encountering an attack is difficult - maneuver target.
      Well something like that.
      1. bootlegger 26 November 2019 18: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Nuclear weapons are not special forces, but rather "large battalions." Their equivalent.
        Special forces are not afraid of anyone, nor can they be a deterrent. But a large space bus with a dozen or so warheads is quite imaginable. This is a weapon of the apocalypse, and no one wants the apocalypse at home.
        Vanguard as a weapon, of course, has the right to exist, but rather in conventional equipment. And in a nuclear war, simple statistics will be important.
  17. mark2 26 November 2019 17: 53 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    . Hypersonic Vanguard shown to US inspectors: contractual openness


    Well, stupidly did.
  18. -ш- 26 November 2019 18: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    a minute of black humor about those who wrote that it was a cartoon
  19. ABM
    ABM 26 November 2019 18: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    just not sold
  20. Lena Petrova 26 November 2019 19: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Doubters can be shown. One is the Crimean bridge, the other is the Vanguard. They don’t take money for viewing.
  21. 2 Level Advisor 26 November 2019 19: 45 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Sydor Amenpospestovich
    Now Americans are sure that at least Vanguard is not a bluff. And since it’s not a bluff, it means not a bluff and everything else (laser, BPPA, rocket with unlimited range).
    What can they understand by looking at Vanguard? What materials is it made of? No. How is it managed? Also extremely unlikely.
    Only the shape that they could have imagined rightly, since the laws of aerodynamics in the United States are the same as in Russia.

    Your interesting logic is Sidor .. i.e. why is it that if one does not bluff the rest is also true? I’m talking about a combat laser, you’ve already sorted it out, no one has even voiced this officially yet .. I’m asking not from the point of view, I believe / I don’t believe, I just wonder why this follows one from the other in terms of your logic?
    but in general, of course, it was not in vain that they showed, let them worry .. by the way, under the pre-launch fairing, they still can’t make out the shape, it is almost the same for everyone ..
  22. Roman RUS 26 November 2019 20: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    During the time it was shown by exceptional inspectors, such an unpleasant and specific odor went that it was necessary to increase the forced ventilation performance so that the smell of what was not sinking would not spread throughout the object.
  23. Berkut24 26 November 2019 21: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And where are the joyful faces of the American inspector?
  24. malyvalv 26 November 2019 23: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And what did the Americans agree to show us in response?
    Again deflection. So the matter will come that the Vanguards will be included in the next START treaty at the request of the Americans and cut. Under the pretext that we type will not lose anything. Straight smell of 90s again smelled.
  25. Old26 1 December 2019 16: 45 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: 210ox
    So what. They showed them the launch container at the position.

    The UR-100N UTTH missile has a gas-dynamic launch method and is not launched from TPK

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    Although .... If externally only the UR-100N UTTKh ICBM was shown, and not the planning unit itself, then all the way.

    In principle, the display system was developed decades ago. On the site put up a product with measuring rulers. In order to show the number of warheads, the fairing is removed. But. In order not to give the enemy information about the specific aerodynamics of a particular product, deforming covers are put on the BB. That is, it is clear that there is one BB or 6 on the product, for example, but the aerodynamics of the unit cannot be observed. Photography is allowed. Like receiving printed inspection materials

    Quote: mark2
    6 blocks - 6 goals. One block one goal. Six blocks one large city or six small. Vanguard as special forces in the army is one goal but important.
    The unit not only maneuvers but also flies too fast.
    They will detect, but they will not be able to bring down. No missiles faster than this-do not catch up. Encountering an attack is difficult - maneuver target.
    Well something like that.

    How much is too fast? The second cosmic speed, the third? or maybe some? All BB ICBMs enter the upper atmosphere at approximately the same rate. Approximately 6,8-7 M. And I wonder where you learned the stupid things that they would shoot at the “Vanguard” or any other block, there weren’t any crazy ones. Neither among them, nor ours. Moreover, GBI strategic interceptors have speeds of more than 8 km / s. Range up to 5000 km, the height of the defeat - up to 2500 km. They will be able to fire and hit before the "Vanguard" enters the atmosphere and begins to maneuver

    Quote: malyvalv
    And what did the Americans agree to show us in response?
    Again deflection. So the matter will come that the Vanguards will be included in the next START treaty at the request of the Americans and cut. Under the pretext that we type will not lose anything. Straight smell of 90s again smelled.

    Do not bend. According to the provisions of the contract, before putting into service, the parties are obliged to show a new product or a product with new military equipment. In this case, we have something to show - we show. The Americans, having begun to develop a missile in return for their Minuteman-3 or Trident-2 when they are armed, will also show them. And we at that time, maybe we won’t show anything.

    As for the "thread" If you read the START-3 treaty, then no "thread" is provided for there. Each of the parties determines its own quantitative and qualitative structure. Restrictions on deployed and non-deployed carriers and deployed warheads. No one can force AvangarD to "cut" us if it meets the parameters of the Treaty. And what we decide to cut ourselves. Or "Poplar" or "Governor"