The sunset of the nuclear triad? Marine component of strategic nuclear forces

The sunset of the nuclear triad? Marine component of strategic nuclear forces

Marine component of strategic nuclear forces



The marine component appeared later aviation and ground component of strategic nuclear forces. In principle, the United States planned to launch nuclear attacks on the USSR, including aircraft taking off from aircraft carriers, but still submarines with ballistic and cruise missiles (CR) with nuclear warheads are considered to be the sea component of strategic nuclear forces.

The first nuclear submarines weapons had limited capabilities: the launch had to be carried out from the surface, which allowed the enemy to quickly detect a pop-up submarine and destroy it before launching the missiles. This was facilitated by the short range of the missiles, due to which the submarine was forced to approach the territory controlled by the anti-submarine forces of the enemy.

Milestones in stories Underwater strategic missile carriers were the emergence of nuclear submarines (nuclear submarines) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of launching from under water.


Ballistic missiles starting from under water

Thus, a new class of weapons appeared - SSBN (nuclear submarine with ballistic missiles), in Russia called the SSBN (strategic missile submarine cruiser) with ballistic missile submarines (SLBMs) ​​deployed on it and strategic cruise missiles with a nuclear warhead (currently KR time for submarines with nuclear warheads removed from service).

Like other components of the strategic nuclear forces (air and ground), the marine component has its advantages and disadvantages. To some extent, it can be said that the marine component combines the advantages and disadvantages of the aviation and ground components of the strategic nuclear forces. For example, as in the case of bombers at airfields, SSBNs at the pier are practically defenseless against a sudden disarming strike by both nuclear and conventional weapons, although, unlike an aircraft, it can launch SLBMs directly from the pier.


Russian SSBNs of project 667BDRM "Dolphin" and 941 "Shark" at the pier. With one special charge, the enemy can destroy about 250-300 nuclear warheads, i.e. approximately 1/6 of the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal

On the other hand, after entering the sea it is much more difficult to detect and destroy SSBNs, which is somewhat related to this type of weaponry with mobile ground missile systems (PGRK). Accordingly, if it was possible to ensure the secrecy of SSBNs when an adversary inflicts a sudden disarming strike, then it can strike a retaliation of tremendous power. Theoretically unacceptable losses to the enemy can cause even one SSBN.

Given that the survival of SSBNs is its secrecy, it is necessary to ensure a minimum time of its stay at the pier, that is, a high coefficient of operational voltage (KOH). This is ensured by improving the efficiency of logistics and maintenance of SSBNs, as well as the presence of two interchangeable crews for each SSBN, similar to how it is done in the USA.

It is much more difficult to ensure the secrecy of SSBNs when leaving the basing area to the patrol area. For a long time, the Soviet SSBNs were significantly lagging behind the American ones. Because of this, the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces of the USSR has always been in second place with respect to the ground component of strategic nuclear forces - strategic missile forces (Strategic Missile Forces). The latest Russian SSBNs in terms of noise characteristics are supposedly comparable to the US SSBN. But since it is impossible to achieve absolute invisibility, this only affects the detection range of the SSBNs by the antisubmarine forces of the enemy. Do not forget that the means of detecting submarines are also rapidly improving.


The newest Russian SSBN project 955 (A)

The most important factor enhancing the survivability of the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces is the presence of a strong fleetcapable of protecting SSBNs from submarines and anti-submarine aircraft of the enemy. And with this we have serious problems. It is possible that due to the construction of new ships it will be possible to ensure the SSBN exit from the base, but it will be much more difficult for the Russian Navy to provide high-quality cover for patrol areas in the near future.


American SSBN assassins - Virginia submarine and P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft

The biggest drawback of the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces is that on combat duty SSBNs are in international waters, where there is no way to limit enemy activity. In other words, the enemy can carry out unlimited deployment of their ships, submarines, aircraft, autonomous sensors and promising submarine and surface unmanned systems.

SOSUS and FOSS


During the Cold War, the United States deployed the SOSUS (SOund SUrveillance System, sound surveillance system) in the ocean to detect Soviet submarines. The SOSUS system was a giant field of acoustic antennas in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. In the Middle North, SOSUS sensors were located throughout the Lofoten Basin, from the shores of Norway to the island of Jan Mine. After the deployment of the system, the hidden passage of Soviet submarines into the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean proved to be very difficult, since submarines were found at a distance of several hundred kilometers.


The marked anti-submarine lines were based on the stations of the stationary SOSUS long-range sonar monitoring system for underwater conditions in the Atlantic (above) and Pacific (below) military theaters. The stationary system was supplemented by basic anti-submarine aircraft, anti-submarine ships and submarines, acoustic reconnaissance ships that searched for Soviet submarines in areas and at the borders

Currently, the SOSUS system is mothballed, the emphasis is on promising rapidly deployable multi-element regional underwater lighting systems (FOSS) consisting of emitters towed by surface ships, and numerous receivers: towed antennas of surface ships, sonar complexes (HAC) of submarines, sonar buoys and sonar buoys and on the ground of linear antennas.

In addition to sonar, the search for submarines by the FOSS system is also carried out in other ways - by changing the hydrostatic pressure, the readings of seismic sensors of the seabed, the illumination of the underwater bottom, the magnetic field, changes in the Earth's gravitational field, and the wave trail of the boat.


The principle of the system of FOSS

Imagine for a moment that reconnaissance and signaling devices, deployed mobile units on armored vehicles would be deployed on the PGRK movement routes, and enemy aircraft would patrol the sky. How sustainable would such a component of the strategic nuclear forces be?

It can be assumed that in the short term the number of autonomous sensors, underwater, surface and unmanned aerial vehicles capable of searching for submarines will only increase. The characteristics of sensors will also increase, and high-performance computing tools, including those based on neural networks, will help to effectively monitor almost all large objects in the oceans in real time.

Under these conditions, only a fleet comparable to the enemy’s fleet, capable of creating an A2 / AD zone (anti-access and area denial - restricting and denying access and maneuver) at least in a limited area can ensure an acceptable degree of survival of the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces.

In case this is not possible, SSBNs can be monitored by the enemy throughout the route. If the enemy decides on a sudden disarming strike, all SSBNs will be destroyed, and information on this can be obtained with a significant delay. Given the number of nuclear warheads on one SSBN, the destruction of at least one of them will cause significant damage to Russian nuclear potential.

In this context, nothing will change the adoption of the Poseidon unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), since the carriers are destroyed even before the launch of the UAV. And the invulnerability of the Poseidon BPA itself remains a big question.


BPA Poseidon

Possible solutions


How can survival of SSBNs be increased? Building a powerful and efficient fleet is the obvious answer. The only question is whether we can create such a fleet and how long it will take.

Can reduce the likelihood of tracking SSBNs due to construction PLARK - nuclear-powered submarines with cruise missiles on the basis of one project with SSBNs. As it appears, the construction of the SSBN project 955K is considered by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. In case of simultaneous exit from the SSBN and SSBN base on the basis of one project, it will be difficult for the enemy to understand which one needs to be tracked, and the probability of being lost in the open spaces of the SSBN will be higher. But not much, since it’s not possible to build many SSGNs, and our enemy has too many anti-submarine weapons, which will allow him to track all carriers. On the other hand themselves SSGNs can also be effective weapons of conventional warfare.

The survival of the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces can be enhanced by the “toothing” of SSBNs themselves. First of all, it is equipping SSBNs with modern torpedoes and anti-torpedoes.


Universal deep-sea homing torpedo (UGST) caliber 533 mm


Antitorpeda M-15 complex "Package-NK" for surface ships

Increase the security of SSBNs against anti-submarine aircraft can underwater anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM). On the latest French nuclear submarine (nuclear submarine) "Suffren" class "Barracuda SNA" installed SAMS submarine-based self defense A3SMDeveloped by a joint division of MBDA and DCNS, and capable of launching from under the water a modified MICA-IR medium-range air-combat missile with a dual-band infrared homing head. The launch capsule with an anti-aircraft missile is launched from torpedo tubes of a caliber of 533 mm.


MICA-IR air defense missile launch capsule A3SM

Given that Russia is a leader in the creation of air defense systems of various classes, it can be assumed that we are fully capable of equipping our submarines with air defense systems, for example, on the basis of the Vityaz air defense system, with missiles with an active homing radar (ARLGSN) or an infrared homing head (IR GOS).


9M100 short-range anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAMs) with infrared seeker and medium-range 9M96 / 9M96E with ARLGS

Or, following the example of the French, create air defense systems based on air-to-air missiles RVV-BD and RVV-MD.


Air-to-air missiles RVV-BD and RVV-MD

An even more radical solution could be the creation of SSBNs and a multipurpose nuclear submarine (ICAPL) on the basis of one project. According to unconfirmed reports, such a decision has already been considered by domestic developers, however, at present, the creation of SSBNs based on this project is not mentioned. Obviously, the implementation of such a solution has objective difficulties due to the significant dimensions of SLBMs, but most likely they can be overcome when creating promising missiles.


In this case, a universal platform can be created that can carry both cruise and ballistic missiles. The number of SLBMs on board such a nuclear submarine will be limited, for example, to four missiles. The main advantage will be that during the construction of a large series of nuclear submarines on the basis of a universal platform, it will be practically impossible to distinguish SSBNs from ICAPLs. Accordingly, with proper organization of the entry of nuclear submarines and SSBNs into the sea, the enemy will never be able to understand whether he is chasing SSBNs or ICBMs.

It should be noted that for the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces a missile attack warning system (missile warning system) is of minimal importance, it is only important that the possibility of obtaining an order to launch a nuclear strike remains. If the SSBN is not detected, then the launch can be carried out after the destruction of other components of the strategic nuclear forces, and if the SSBN is detected, it will be destroyed even before the SPRN detects the launch of enemy missiles.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Far B 2 January 2020 06: 59 New
    • 8
    • 27
    -19
    The Americans succumbed in noisiness - they did not concede to the Americans in noisiness ... Why is it all if our submarines can emerge from under the ice of the Arctic? Yes, and they are on duty, mainly in the closed basin of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and inaccessible Northern Arctic. Takshta ...
    1. donavi49 2 January 2020 10: 21 New
      • 6
      • 4
      +2
      Well this is how the landing on Pluto is described. Everyone is there. Yankees too.

      1. saturn.mmm 2 January 2020 16: 22 New
        • 10
        • 3
        +7
        Quote: donavi49
        Everyone is there. Yankees too.

        You have a video of how the American submarine Hartford stuck in the ice
        Here is a photo pr.941, feel the difference.
        1. alexmach 2 January 2020 16: 59 New
          • 6
          • 4
          +2
          Here is a photo pr.941

          Discontinued ...
          1. saturn.mmm 2 January 2020 17: 05 New
            • 6
            • 8
            -2
            Quote: alexmach
            Discontinued ...

            One more in the ranks of the TK-208. TK-17, TK-20 may fall under reconstruction.
            1. SovAr238A 2 January 2020 17: 35 New
              • 11
              • 6
              +5
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Quote: alexmach
              Discontinued ...

              One more in the ranks of the TK-208. TK-17, TK-20 may fall under reconstruction.


              There is nothing in the combat formation. there will be no modernization or reconstruction.
              1. saturn.mmm 2 January 2020 17: 50 New
                • 4
                • 5
                -1
                Quote: SovAr238A
                Nothing in battle

                In 2019, the TK-208 was in the combat structure of the Russian Navy, in June it was tested after factory repair
                Quote: SovAr238A
                there will be no modernization or reconstruction.

                This is to Vice Admiral Oleg Burtsev, he announced the reconstruction.
        2. SovAr238A 2 January 2020 17: 36 New
          • 14
          • 12
          +2
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Quote: donavi49
          Everyone is there. Yankees too.

          You have a video of how the American submarine Hartford stuck in the ice


          Stop repeating how the ass about stuck ...
          This is the second reincarnation of Cook and Khibin ...
          Both there and there are lies, but raised by our stupid urya-patriots for flags ...
          1. saturn.mmm 2 January 2020 17: 59 New
            • 6
            • 6
            0
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Stop repeating how the ass about stuck ...

            So the boat really got stuck if it is cut out with chainsaws and hollowed out with picks then what is your opinion?
            Here is another photo, maybe this time you’ll catch the difference

            Quote: SovAr238A
            This is the second reincarnation of Cook and Khibin ...
            Both there and there are lies, but raised by our stupid urya-patriots for flags ..

            I did not write anything about Cook.
            1. ProkletyiPirat 3 January 2020 02: 03 New
              • 10
              • 1
              +9
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              So the boat really got stuck, if it is cut out with chainsaws and hollowed out with picks then What is your opinion?

              This is called a “normal workflow," our submariners just as well clear ice hatches before launching missiles. hi Or do you think on our submarines the ice is teleported into orbit? or maybe his penguins and polar bears take him home?
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. ProkletyiPirat 3 January 2020 06: 46 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Well, why this video?
              2. saturn.mmm 3 January 2020 23: 56 New
                • 3
                • 3
                0
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                or maybe his penguins and polar bears take him home?

                There are no penguins in the Arctic.
          2. DMB_95 2 January 2020 20: 33 New
            • 7
            • 6
            +1
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Quote: donavi49
            Everyone is there. Yankees too.

            You have a video of how the American submarine Hartford stuck in the ice


            Stop repeating how the ass about stuck ...
            This is the second reincarnation of Cook and Khibin ...
            Both there and there are lies, but raised by our stupid urya-patriots for flags ...

            Tell me more - what and how to write here. Look better at what “Urya-patriots” write and say about Russia and even the off-person of our likely (100%) opponents - it's just a dump of your head !! The Information War is going on in such a way that the Union has not dreamed of, and it is necessary to somehow defend against such a bulk from all sides. And then there are such cheers and not patriots inside the country.
          3. Sarmat Sanych 4 January 2020 04: 34 New
            • 4
            • 5
            -1
            SovAr238A, enough to justify the underdeveloped mattress covers, they have documented dozens of times already stuck and burned. Which, in principle, is not surprising, their single-hull rattles are not physically able to split even half of the thickness that our submarines can.
            1. Nick 4 January 2020 11: 47 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Sarmat Sanych
              SovAr238A, enough to justify the underdeveloped mattress covers, they have documented dozens of times already stuck and burned. Which, in principle, is not surprising, their single-hull rattles are not physically able to split even half of the thickness that our submarines can.

              Yes, because their nuclear submarines are built with low buoyancy, unlike the Russian ones.
      2. Sarmat Sanych 4 January 2020 04: 29 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        donavi49, are you kidding?) The Arctic is Russian, all in our military bases plus 100% of the planet’s nuclear icebreakers in Russia, 80% of ordinary icebreakers and even icebreakers, and mattresses are only rare poor relatives. Last winter, both Impruvd Los Angeles and Sea Wolf once again got stuck in the ice near Alaska during a missile training exercise, and the cat cried there - less than half a meter of icelaughing. Epic picture: these two moose Elk and the Wolf are sitting, the teams cut ice with chainsaws, and ours sent the Tu-142, it circled above them, took everything that they needed (plus maybe they sent it underwater), the middle finger showed and went off - training destructiongood.
    2. max702 4 January 2020 01: 04 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Something big and green died on VO .. The people ate Olivier took a bite of champagne and suddenly there was a revelation that the fleet was all .. Especially the naval part of the strategic nuclear forces .. In the comments there were a lot more sensible people and the author of the article asks very timely questions. Here the main task is to understand where the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces came from? Everything was simple in those days, rocket technologies were in their infancy and were not able to carry out their task in the sane mass-size specifications, they needed a lot and the carriers for them did not differ in small size, but what is the heaviest load of any transport? The sea transport is correct, the railway seems to be suitable for carrying capacity, but the problem of overall dimensions and limited paths made the task very difficult, plus the small range of missiles in the required dimensions, and this led to the decision to put rockets on the ship and move to the shores of the adversary to get it, plus reducing flight time .. There were no other solutions at that time in principle (like there were no other solutions at the time of the galleons, the guns had to be delivered closer to the enemy’s cities like this) .. Thinking they came to the conclusion that the SSBN was ideal they are suitable for these goals, the task had to be completed and they weren’t particularly taken into account, it all turned out like a snowball and the concept really didn’t work, if there were still enough resources for the fleet, then the infrastructure was already gone both for maintenance staff and directly it turned out to be very expensive for the ships .. Years passed, the missile range problems in acceptable mass dimensions were completely solved BUT in the fleet and, in particular, colossal funds were invested, and although everyone already understood the obvious discrepancy of the maid sya was nowhere the process was under way, recognize that the trillions of rubles invested not quite there as something very few people like that's going on thumb but without any rush. Perestroika struck and the ultra-expensive project completely lost its meaning .. For 30 years the collapse of the idea of ​​the Strategic Nuclear Forces has come to a complete standstill bringing the fleet's problems to a new level and it seems there is something but absolutely useless, in the future it is not necessary and even criminally harmful for the country's defense .. For Deployment of the SSBN needs a full-fledged fleet which, in theory, is IMPOSSIBLE! Consequently, the SSBN is a criminal waste of small resources, and together with them attempts to build the necessary fleet. All strategic missile forces will be completely solved by the Strategic Missile Forces, which both silos and PGRK missile technology will allow, the component of the strategic nuclear forces is greater for flexibility of use and plus there is the possibility of using conventional means that the strategic nuclear forces do not they can provide no way .. For the Strategic Missile Forces, the task of flexibility of use is not just because of the ultimatumity of the tool, they will start and end the global war, and unlike the strategic nuclear forces no one will stop them ..
      The conclusion from the article and the discussions of the Strategic Nuclear Forces is everything, the fleet is almost everything, we are investing resources in space, aviation, rocket science .. Else, as these tasks are completed.
      1. Vladimir1155 5 January 2020 22: 45 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I still think that the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces should not be abandoned even if the enemy wastes resources on counteracting it
        1. max702 8 January 2020 20: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Multipurpose submarines are perfect for these purposes ..
    3. mamonthful 9 January 2020 00: 05 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      can in a limited range of ice thicknesses, which still need to be found, but you received an order and you need to urgently, right now, launch. How much time are you going to take to find enough thin ice?
  2. Al_lexx 2 January 2020 07: 01 New
    • 18
    • 6
    +12
    The colors are clearly thickened, almost to complete blackness. Although, of course there are problems. But there is also an objective reality, which suggests that we have not yet heard an alarm about a nuclear attack and are unlikely to hear in the foreseeable future. Moreover, in the modern world, strategic nuclear forces are considered only and only the guarantor of a full-scale war, with the use of nuclear weapons and nothing else. American plans for a nuclear bombardment of the USSR (such as drop shots, etc.) have long sunk into oblivion, since a retaliatory strike is inevitable and this is obvious to Americans. And the point is not even the loss of life with which they will cope like a thread, but that the infrastructure of the largest world economy will be destroyed, while there are many more countries that are breathing America in the back of their heads in this regard. Everything will be destroyed, from military bases to power plants, financial centers, processing complexes, etc. Americans are primarily afraid of the instant loss of their technological superiority and industrial potential, and hence their status as a superpower. And it’s not at all a fact that they will have the opportunity to catch up. They are simply torn to pieces by those who had the mind not to get involved in such a fight.
    1. Krasnodar 2 January 2020 07: 11 New
      • 12
      • 5
      +7
      That's right. They will have the level of world influence of North Korea and the quality of life of Central Africa.
      1. Snusmumrik 3 January 2020 17: 02 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        And in Russia, at the same time, the level of world influence and the standard of living of Greenland. So there is little reason for optimism.
    2. donavi49 2 January 2020 10: 29 New
      • 20
      • 3
      +17
      The colors are clearly thickened, almost to complete blackness.


      Today, a breakthrough is possible only with a strong cover. For on the other side there is the most powerful and modern multi-stage PLO system in the world. Even taking into account the disruption of the AUGs in this aspect. Hundreds of databases overlapping deployment paths. Underwater components. Poseidons The entire NATO bloc and other allies, which will also be forced to send ship, underwater and air components. Well and the Virginia horde - which are baked at a pace of 636.

      Deployment can only be done by the ICAPL. Since 636 and all sorts of Albatrosses-Karakurt are overgrown, they will be able to cover only the nearest zone - to provide an exit from the base after the fact. Then they will be a marker and a burden.

      ICAPL is small. I am already silent about what they have in their tasks - securing their veil and a warm welcome to Ohio. But even to cover only the SSBNs, they are not enough.

      Construction is very slow. The repair program generally got up. The same Bratsk and Samara, according to their initial plans, should already have been modernized and returned to Kamchatka. In fact, they were just diagnosed and the work did not even begin.

      In such a situation, mobile soil complexes are cheaper, more efficient, more stable in a combat situation. Therefore, the general message +/- is pragmatic. If there is no money to ensure a breakthrough, and if something happens, you have to get ready to shoot from the water, for exit = death, then it is more profitable to rivet Yars on a wheelbase. Leaving only a piece presence in the SSBN to maintain competencies.
      1. Al_lexx 2 January 2020 11: 16 New
        • 7
        • 6
        +1
        Quote: donavi49
        Today, a breakthrough is possible only with a strong cover. For on the other side there is the most powerful and modern multi-stage PLO system in the world.

        With all due respect, but this factor does not matter in the context of the nuclear triad and the use of nuclear submarines by armed ICBMs. Anti-submarine defense was created in order to protect marine communications from multipurpose submarines. And it controls far from the entire area of ​​the seas and oceans. And most importantly, these communications are by no means targets for any ICBMs. Goals, it is the coastal structure (military and civilian), decision centers, energy, including and hydroelectric stations, large enterprises of mining and processing industries, etc., etc. And the fact that the routes for convoys between the old and new worlds will be relatively safe will no longer matter much, since there will be nothing to carry along them, there is nothing to load / unload on anything.
        1. donavi49 2 January 2020 12: 12 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          Why hunters? That is, which Borey will go to the dagger volley will be on another globe ???

          Reality:
          1) Volley from the bases - the main component of the strategic nuclear forces will execute it. The question is why pay for the expensive SSBNs, if the mobile Yars can cope even better, in terms of the missile component, cheaper (or they can be massed more) + a much more complex target for any type of defeat today.

          2) A small KOH (again, reality) - this is say 1-2 SSBNs in the far zone, which could be there in the threatened period. At the same time, they will have to overcome the developed PLO system upon the fact of the rest of the western world + Japan (in the Far East - which is also bent, if anything, during the threatened period). Or go to the Arctic - but there is an underwater component of friends (and not only Virginia, but Astyutes for example).

          3) A long threatened period, a la Caribbean crisis, here, ideally, you can push out everything that is not sorted. But again, the lack of funds to ensure a breakthrough. Outside the SSBN base, they will rely on God and 1-2 distracting ICAPLs (even in the north it’s not enough to set up). At the same time, Ohio will be deployed in a proving ground and will be able to provide the same Dagger strike, for which they build the SSBN.
          1. Winnie76 2 January 2020 13: 09 New
            • 7
            • 1
            +6
            Quote: donavi49
            The question is why pay for the expensive SSBNs, if the mobile Yars can cope even better, in terms of the missile component, cheaper (or they can be massed more) + a much more complex target for any type of defeat today.

            In general, I agree, but there is one big but. To counter several nuclear submarines with ICBMs, partners are forced to attract crazy resources. All these Poseidons (planes), Sosuses, Virginia, Los Angeles, Sea Wolves, Sea Hunters, satellite constellations and much more.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2020 16: 50 New
              • 12
              • 1
              +11
              Quote: Winnie76
              To counter several nuclear submarines with ICBMs, partners are forced to attract crazy resources.

              Roughly - a hundred PLO aircraft (high-quality), several SURTASS ships, satellites and a couple of dozen submarines. I would not say. that this is crazy :))))
        2. 3danimal 3 January 2020 04: 41 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Nothing on? Do you expect the destruction of their entire cargo fleet in the ocean? How?
          1. Mordvin 3 3 January 2020 09: 10 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            Quote: 3danimal
            How so?

            Poseidon laughing
            1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 12: 24 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              But seriously? The cargo fleet runs in many directions. Planning to hit the squares? Do you understand that the number of "ubertorpedos" will be greatly limited?
              1. Mordvin 3 3 January 2020 12: 28 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: 3danimal
                The cargo fleet runs in many directions.

                We don’t have a fleet. 90 percent of the fleet shkandybayut under the rags of foreign.
                1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 12: 40 New
                  • 4
                  • 2
                  +2
                  Not ours, but the USA and allies.
                  The lack of a cargo and merchant fleet in the Russian Federation in any acceptable quantities is a question for the "best people of the country" and how they disposed of a few trillions of $ extra profit in the last 20 years ...
                  1. Mordvin 3 3 January 2020 12: 46 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    The lack of a cargo and merchant fleet in the Russian Federation in any acceptable quantities is a question for the "best people of the country" and how they disposed of a few trillions of $

                    Of the 149 (one hundred forty-nine) Sovcomflot vessels, only the 21 vessel is flying the Russian flag, the rest are registered under the so-called “convenient flags”: Liberia - 115, Cyprus - 11 and Singapore - 2. If everything is clear with Cyprus and Singapore, then I am sure that the reader will be very interested to know about registration under the flag of Liberia. If you believe that the Liberian Register is located in African Monrovia, then you are very mistaken, as it is located in the city of New York, USA, at:

                    99 Park Avenue, Suite 1830

                    New York, New York 10016-1601 USA

                    Phone: + 1 212 697 3434

                    Fax: + 1 212 697 5655

                    Email: [email protected]

                    Ugh! I have no words...
      2. MstislavHrabr 2 January 2020 12: 02 New
        • 6
        • 5
        +1
        And how do you like the idea of ​​making the American SOSUS system work for us ...
        Or the creation of special underwater sources of noise, I would call them "screamers", who if that can arrange a "super cacophony" for the enemy ...
        I think that there are 1000 more cheap options that can nullify billions of dollars in spending ... You just need to look ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2020 16: 52 New
          • 8
          • 1
          +7
          Quote: MstislavHrabr
          And how do you like the idea of ​​making the American SOSUS system work for us ...

          What for? She sees boats of the 3rd generation every other time, she will not really see the fourth at all. By the way, SOSUS is mothballed
          Quote: MstislavHrabr
          Or the creation of special underwater sources of noise, I would call them "screamers", who if that can arrange a "super cacophony" for the enemy ...

          It will not help, from the word at all. Acoustics, this is not a radar, everything is much more complicated there
          Quote: MstislavHrabr
          I think that there are 1000 more cheap options that can nullify billions of dollars in spending ...

          As you will find at least one working - urgently contact the MO :)))))
        2. PSih2097 2 January 2020 22: 09 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          Quote: MstislavHrabr
          Or the creation of special underwater sources of noise, I would call them "screamers", who if that can arrange a "super cacophony" for the enemy ...

          it’s easier and cheaper to tear a megaton under water ... Everything instantly goes blind and deaf.
      3. bayard 2 January 2020 14: 56 New
        • 7
        • 3
        +4
        Quote: donavi49
        If there is no money to ensure a breakthrough, and if something happens, you have to get ready to shoot from the water, for exit = death, then it is more profitable to rivet Yars on a wheelbase.

        Votkinsk also has its own limitations in terms of power ... and in terms of wheelbase, in light of the “potato king” picks, everything is still not clear (KAMAZ is trying).
        At the same time, there is a certain imbalance in nuclear submarine construction programs. "Boreev" and "Ash-tree" \ "Ash-tree-M" is laid \ planned for a dozen, despite the fact that "Ash" is called multi-purpose for accompaniment, too, the language will not turn around. This is rather a multi-purpose firing pin - forty missiles in vertical mines imply using them on surface groups and enemy coastal infrastructure. Therefore, the role of the underwater hunter for the enemy’s nuclear submarines and the protection of their SSBNs are somewhat ... cramped, they are too large and expensive for such specific purposes ...
        If you look at the medium-term prospect (completion of the mortgaged series and modernization of the Batons under 72 Zircons), it may turn out that in 10 years Russia will have no clean hunters at all. But they need to have at least two times more than SSBNs (ideally, three, as was the case with the USSR), so that one of them provides combat protection of SSBNs in areas of combat deployment, and the other goes on a free hunt for submarines and enemy ships. Such nuclear submarines should have a limited displacement (say up to 6000 - 8000 tons), high speed and maneuverability, extremely low noise, relatively inexpensive for the possibility of building a large series and have a large number of torpedoes in service. KR - as an option with the launch through torpedo tubes. That is, it should be an analogue of "Pike-B" at a new technical level.
        The situation when the price of Ashen is almost twice the price of Borea, and its (Ashen) dimensions are equal to those of Ohio ... it’s not very normal ... request Therefore, it turns out that industry heroically overcoming all difficulties builds exclusively strike nuclear submarines, which in life themselves usually need to cover their missions, and hunters still in service do not undergo repairs and upgrades ... Hopes that the Husky it will be just that - a multi-purpose hunter with limited displacement, it seems to have been covered with a copper basin ... The declared characteristics paint us a colossus of about 13 tons with vertical shafts for the Kyrgyz Republic, a kind of new version of Ash-tree under the name "Laika".
        If you really want to have underwater arsenals of the Kyrgyz Republic, then it’s enough to build 4-6 Boreevs with the Kyrgyz Republic in glasses and all will be happy - the fastest, cheapest and most angry option possible.
        ... But there were hopes that the “Husky" will be a continuation of the idea of ​​"Lyra" ...
        And to ensure the PLO in the regions, it is necessary to focus on the frigates of the PLO (with their high autonomy and seaworthiness) and anti-submarine aviation ... bringing the same capabilities for detecting submarines (aircraft) to the level of modern capabilities of the United States (the same radar method).
        1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 04: 44 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          About silver bullets-Zircons .. Where are the photos of the rocket? What are its characteristics and, most importantly, dimensions? Why is it that only the Boeing X-51 Waverider is offered over and over again?
          1. bayard 3 January 2020 12: 30 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            Why is it that only the Boeing X-51 Waverider is offered over and over again?

            Well, if only because the X-51 became an American implementation of the Soviet program "Cold". But the Americans did not succeed, because those. The documentation on "Cold" was not complete, and it was not brought to any sustainable result - it was closed by Gorbachev.
            Quote: 3danimal
            Where is the rocket photo?

            They are secret.
            Quote: 3danimal
            What are its characteristics and, most importantly, dimensions?

            Characteristics Putin brought you. Or do you not trust the Supreme Commander? And the sizes? About the same as the “Onyx”, because it will be equipped in the same UVP UKKS.
            And nobody will tell you in more detail, this secret is State. yes
            1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 12: 42 New
              • 4
              • 3
              +1
              If you paid attention, then the X-51 is much larger than Onyx; despite the fact that the first is an air launch and does not have warheads).
              Do you propose blindly believing an infallible, infallible and irreducible (video from Afghanistan in the movie Stone and others) person?
              1. bayard 3 January 2020 13: 31 New
                • 3
                • 4
                -1
                As you can see, you are a great connoisseur of Hollywood.
                Then we could recall the work of Kubrick about the flights of Americans to the moon ... repeat wink
                That's where the hype and propaganda fellow And even kerosene in the eyes - all the "God's" dew.
                And about Zircon, it’s better for you personally to look in the US intelligence reports, in the reports of their headquarters on this topic about the tests of Zircon from ground-based launchers - they have been watching this for a long time, since there are enough satellites.
                And you know, they DO NOT DOUBT. yes
                You can blindly believe them.
                You can doubt it.
                The main thing is that in the headquarters of the enemies of Russia doubting this (Zircon) account - NO!
                1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 13: 54 New
                  • 6
                  • 2
                  +4
                  I see that you consider yourself to be “Witnesses of Americans not flying to the moon”))
                  It’s sad, really. What about the world conspiracy? )
                  There is more reason to trust Soviet scientists and astronauts, rather than any crooks, which I advise you too. In addition, all landing sites are confirmed.
                  About Zircon. Do not share US intelligence reports and reports of their headquarters? Personally, I would be very interested to see the originals)
                  Who do you attribute to the enemies of Russia and how do you see their motives?
                  1. bayard 3 January 2020 14: 29 New
                    • 2
                    • 5
                    -3
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    I see that you consider yourself to be “Witnesses of Americans not flying to the moon”))

                    Mariners on the Saturn-1V flew to the moon. But not more .
                    Perhaps I can be called such a witness to some extent, because I was familiar with some participants in the Soviet “Lunar Program” - with people who were developing the Soviet lunar landing ship (Yuzhmash), and with some people who served in Baikonur from its foundation. And I heard about the "Moon Scam" at a very young age (for the first time).
                    And how “all gophers on Baikonur died with a laugh” when the Americans announced their flight.
                    When I myself began to get acquainted with the details of their program, I also almost died with a laugh - it was what.

                    Do not give Leonov as an example.
                    This is a traitor and Judas.
                    None of the real - serious experts and astronauts on this (lunar) topic tried not to talk. Nobody wanted to become a liar.

                    And about the "Zircon" ... just be patient, it should be adopted this year.
                    And dig yourself into the reports of your headquarters - they are closer to you. And there should not be problems with the translation.
                    1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 14: 54 New
                      • 4
                      • 2
                      +2
                      How interesting) I do not have access to either “my” headquarters (Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation), or, especially, American ones. You probably believe that these are open institutions? )))
                      Discharge with "secret" information (source - REN-TV?) Counted)
                      1. bayard 3 January 2020 15: 47 New
                        • 4
                        • 2
                        +2
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        source - REN-TV?

                        Source - Design Bureau of the solid fuel division of Yuzhmash (PMZ) ... head of the access laboratory of Serbin (about his older brother, who was in charge of the entire rocket and space industry of the USSR since Khrushchev, I hope they heard?), Well, a lot more. yes
                        And also a binder of the weekly rocket and space rocket technology (chipboard library) for the indicated period ... I was especially amused by the photo report on the "moon spacesuit" with zippers (!!!) ... the spacecraft hatches on the piano loops that open outward (!) And the "ship" itself without thermal protection for the passage of dense layers of the atmosphere.
                        And they still could not invent a toilet for themselves. lol
                        But most importantly, they did not have the Saturn 5 lunar rocket itself. She failed the test, starting with almost no load, but then all at once - and to the moon ...
                        It’s ridiculous. lol
                        And yes, for about 3 years I myself participated in ensuring the landing of all Soviet vehicles from orbit.
                        Including Buran.
                        But it was radar tracking after entering the dense atmosphere.
                      2. bk0010 3 January 2020 17: 26 New
                        • 4
                        • 1
                        +3
                        Quote: bayard
                        Source - Design Bureau of the solid fuel division of Yuzhmash (PMZ) ... head of the Serbia clearance laboratory
                        But to me, a man who also did not serve in kindergarten at that time, said that we were receiving an American signal from the moon.
                        Quote: bayard
                        But most importantly, they did not have the Saturn 5 lunar rocket itself. She failed the test, starting with almost no load, but then all at once - and to the moon ...
                        What, and Skylab was not?
                      3. bayard 3 January 2020 17: 40 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        Quote: bk0010
                        , said that we received the American signal from the moon.

                        Of course they took it - from Mariner. An automatic station delivered there by the Von Braun Saturn-1B rocket.
                        The Americans didn’t have a life support system for Apolon, a heat shield, the Eagle landing ship, spacesuits ... Saturn-5 launch vehicle ... almost everything. Yes, at the appointed time it was physically impossible to create, test and prepare for the mission.
                        And there was nothing to overcome radiation belts either. Existing and existing QCs cannot do this to this day.
                        You understand - people just won’t survive.
                        Therefore, what is the moon lol
                        But the machines flew.
            2. sniperino 5 January 2020 12: 01 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: bayard
              The main thing is that in the headquarters of the enemies of Russia doubting this (Zircon) account - NO!
              They work to undermine people's confidence in the combat effectiveness of our Armed Forces, headquarters - not their level at all.
  3. VALENTIN-37 13 January 2020 14: 46 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Only ICAPL can provide deployment
    The deployment process includes the EITI, exit from the base, diff-ku, the trail to the dive., The formation of a false route, the provision of radar ... The event is very difficult, requiring a large outfit. Sometimes it was held to carry out KP or PPO in order to secretly pull out the unit. on the BS.
    What you are writing about is a fragment of the concept of "combat stability."
    I at one time how many of them "provided". Still sick. am



  • NordUral 2 January 2020 15: 24 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    The colors are clearly thickened, almost to complete blackness.

    Rather, it is still very softly said.
  • Saxahorse 2 January 2020 20: 51 New
    • 12
    • 1
    +11
    Quote: Al_lexx
    The colors are clearly thickened, almost to complete blackness. Although, of course there are problems.

    A common and very streamlined phrase. The colors are not so thickened that I would even suspect the author of some unjustified optimism.

    Sorry for being rude, but I will remind you of the famous photo of 2015.


    Severodvinsk, we see four of the five strategists of the Northern Fleet at the berths in one place. And this is not the deaf 90s, this is the 2015th year! It is not surprising that the Moscow Region requires toughening censorship .. For such photos of admirals, you must immediately dismiss with the deprivation of orders and ranks! Despite the ultra-peppy statements, the real combat readiness of the fleet is clearly reflected only by a photo ..

    Investments in the marine component of nuclear forces must be forgotten for a long time. States clearly dominate the oceans and building boats as port targets is at least silly. In fact, we have only ground nuclear weapons that are still dangerous for the enemy.
    1. Alexey RA 4 January 2020 22: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Severodvinsk, we see four of the five strategists of the Northern Fleet at the berths in one place.

      Five out of seven. Or four out of six - if you do not take into account the "Short-sighted" just entered into operation then.
      In the photo of the SSBN in the Gadzhiev base, K-51 Verkhoturye, K-84 Yekaterinburg, K-18 Karelia, K-407 Novomoskovsk and K-535 Yuri Dolgoruky were identified.
      In repair at the time of shooting: K-114 Tula.
      And on the database - the only SSBN: K-117 "Bryansk"
  • VALENTIN-37 13 January 2020 12: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Americans are primarily afraid of the instant loss of their technological superiority and industrial potential
    The potential has been created for decades, remember the famous exhibition in Moscow in 1959. Even at the household level, a hundred years behind. Almost everything from songs, radio, cars, electronics, ripped from there.
    What did the sabers of the boats cut from, where did they get the machine? Stolen from the Japanese.
    Rule without exceptions, Jerk, only possible in international cooperation. And with sanctions, this is impossible.
    So they have nothing to fear.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Most kind 2 January 2020 07: 27 New
    • 18
    • 17
    +1
    We can’t do anything, there’s only the Soviet legacy that will end soon, we’re a superpower, which has a fucking mountain of fossils and millionaires, only Ukrainian refugees have almost returned to their lives, because we don’t
    1. bayard 2 January 2020 15: 03 New
      • 7
      • 12
      -5
      Quote: Most Kind
      We can't do anything

      Where do you work?
      What are you doing?
      And how are you put up with if you can’t do anything?
      .... even the pipe layer ...
      maybe that's why
      Quote: Most Kind
      live with us fucking

      ?
      1. Most kind 2 January 2020 15: 26 New
        • 16
        • 4
        +12
        Well, I’m definitely not from the boyard, I’m from the former steel capital of the Far East, in which there were one ship repair, one shipbuilding, and the remnants of the energy mash, maybe a couple of shops still work, and so all the other factories did not enter the market, but because we did the reducer for the fleet, daldiesel worked, it seemed that even the submarines were stamped in the shipbuilding and then they took to the Amur at night, and this was only about Khabarovsk itself, there was still shipbuilding in Nikolaev on the Amur, before perestroika, but also to the market fit in, there, too, submarines were built, dm and d O ther ocean-going vessels, but, alas, did not happen, people are now surviving, and Pradhan catches fish. If even now, right now, Gazprom suddenly decides to start building a stacker, who will build it then? Even in the Big Stone there are not enough skilled workers now. And about the fact that life is good for us, so you look at the statistics on population decline from the Far East, you might be surprised, the Russians are felling, now the settlement is taking off, the Tajiks, they give them lifting for this business, they are going to take exams in Moscow to here to work as doctors, and why to Moscow, duck there is easier to hike, there the examiners like money there, but not really. So it’s still necessary to privatize the defense industry, to give it up to Lopchid and Boeing, they then know exactly how to earn money and work, we alone in the Far East are not able to do anything, in the sense of the Russians, because even refugees from Lugansk dumped us home, they say better in everything, although they shoot
        1. bayard 2 January 2020 18: 31 New
          • 7
          • 3
          +4
          Quote: Most Kind
          since even refugees from Lugansk were dumped home from us, they speak better in everything, although they shoot

          We also shoot. And no thinner than under Lugansk, for I hear almost every day. I vegetate in Donetsk.
          For Daldizel and other Khabarrov wealth ... sorry. I have friends from there - in the military school and in the service still Soviet.
          Sorry for the tone, you never know who’s frolic on the site. It was a great Country to recall what happened during the Union - only to spoil the nerves. Great things were going on. And now - in the age of capitalism, it is only by its laws to plan life ...
          The pipelayer was ordered and built just ahead of time in China, they will distill it now.
          Talking about the leaders of our days, especially in the economy - great sadness and longing, this is what the new owners put forward.
          But there are others.
          If it weren’t, I wouldn’t write this.
          There is such a Russian proverb: "I am going to die, but this face." , and so it is necessary to live.
          Paws folded in submissive suicide - a lot of mind is not needed. When the Russian Empire collapsed, many thought that too was everything, and the greatest state appeared ... because there was a will, there was a desire for a new life ... on torn veins and through “I can’t” ...
          Raising children, raising a good person - whole, purposeful, honest ... family man ... masters of his craft ... From our whining the power of ghouls will not collapse.
          And wars are not won!
          You just need to do your job where you are standing now.
          Not even for myself.
          For children and grandchildren.
          Not for the sake of "heaven of heaven", but for the sake of just life on this (our) Earth.

          Happy New Year ! drinks
          1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 04: 53 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            About "torn veins". We recall that fanatics came to power (with dubious funding), who considered the people they inherited solely as a resource in terms of the “world revolution” (dogmatic goal).
            1. bayard 3 January 2020 12: 42 New
              • 5
              • 1
              +4
              If you are about Trotsky, Sverdlov and others like them, then they didn’t build the state especially; Russia was an armful of brushwood in the bonfire of the revolution. Enthusiasm came after the victory of Stalin's industrial breakthrough program. The state that he proposed was FOR PEOPLE.
              And people felt it.
              Therefore, they built and defended.
              And the "torn veins" ... they are just from enthusiasm. The same film "Communist" was not taken from an empty fantasy as a plot, there were many such people ... It is a pity that too many of these died in the Second World War.
              1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 12: 48 New
                • 2
                • 3
                -1
                There is every reason to believe that the breakthrough was needed as part of the same plan. And the attitude towards the population was similar.
                It is a pity that the geological layers of the Communists and others were laid near Rzhev ... In fact, many were brainwashed, aiming for unconditional trust in the top. Which I already mentioned.
                1. bayard 3 January 2020 13: 18 New
                  • 3
                  • 2
                  +1
                  Stalin was not an agent of external forces.
                  Therefore, during his reign, the state that people considered their own was formed.
                  My grandfather’s family was dispossessed in 1929. And by the age of 30, he had lost all his teeth from scurvy. So I know what I'm writing about. What was the price and who moved what plans there.
                  I consider the movie to which you referred to as a libel and I will not watch it. Fundamentally. I had many conversations with living veterans of that war, when they were not yet old and were in memory - from privates to generals.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  In fact, many have been brainwashed, aiming for unconditional trust at the top.

                  What time are you talking about now?
                  If it’s about today, then yes - liberal media have been brainwashed for 30 years. And they do not relent in this field - everyone stigmatizes and stigmatizes the “damned Stalin”, and his popularity and people's love for him only grow stronger yes repeat
                  And during the TOY War, people saw very well that for some 10 years from the devastation and agrarian backwardness, the country rushed to the number of the most advanced industrial countries. Free universal education, free and the most advanced medicine, open social elevators (we recall how many peasant children became academicians - Yangel, Utkin’s brothers as an example to you). It was a PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in the most obvious and egregious manner. Against this, no brainwashing from Goebels and others like you will help.
                  Because they broke the backbone of the entire European Union Hitler!
                  And recovered in 4 years!
                  And resisted the nuclear race.
                  And in the Cold War, by the beginning of the 70s they won ...
                  ... And then - treason came from your brother, a liberal.
                  After that, your bahwalba and the hutspa of the shores no longer know.
                  1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 13: 48 New
                    • 3
                    • 5
                    -2
                    Here you are, obviously, being captured by the same propaganda, the senseless victims in your family are ready to justify. The forest is cut - chips fly? How many millions of “fists” with families were exiled? For what was considered insufficiently managed and generally objectionable (peasants!) For the new elite, in contrast to loafers and drunkards?
                    1. bayard 3 January 2020 14: 14 New
                      • 3
                      • 2
                      +1
                      Those who dispossessed my grandfather and exiled in exile themselves went to recycling in the late 30s. Both about excesses, and about the factor of the executor already volumes are written down.
                      And my grandfather was after, and had a medal for labor valor, and a whole bunch of letters ... And he raised children by patriots of the Motherland, and not haters, like the children of repressed enemies of the Russian People.
                      Loafers and drunks in the Union worked (!), Because there was an article for parasites. Not like now - in the era of developed capitalism that they are being bombed and battered. Even such people in My Country were not abandoned, but brought up and provided with work. And so - a piece of bread and a full social package.
                      Housing!
                      So you were captured by propaganda.
                      Captured by liberal propaganda of haters.
                      I am sad for you.
                      1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 14: 26 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        Where did you conclude that I hate people? When did he condemn those who destroyed them and treated them like fuel?
                        Those who sent your Grandfather went for disposal within the framework of the security concept of the tops (so as not to gain too much influence), and their share among such grandfathers is extremely small.
                        Of course, propaganda in every possible way whitewashed the “leader and co.”
                      2. Nemchinov Vl 9 January 2020 23: 14 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Those who sent your Grandfather went for disposal within the framework of the security concept of the tops (so as not to gain too much influence), and their share among such grandfathers is extremely small.
                        Rather, the opposite. Dispossessed, returned over time, and fit perfectly into life. My grandfather, too, was dispossessed for two horses on the farm. Then he returned, and with the words “I had everything, and I will have everything”, he plowed on his land from 4 until sunset ... and soon, he was quite able to provide for his family! But especially zealous dispossessioners (drunkards), after “fell under the millstones” themselves, but they didn’t get to their feet after serving time, because loafers and informers are essentially not hard workers ... Earth “tends to clean itself”.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        so as not to gain too much influence
                        have mercy ... there most of it was Jude, on the crest of revolutionary slogans and remarks (and loafers)
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        and their share among such grandfathers is extremely small.
                        therefore - rather the opposite !!
                      3. 3danimal 10 January 2020 12: 43 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        0
                        The dispossessed with time were able to return - one had only to wait for the death of the criminal dictator (in the past).
                      4. bayard 13 January 2020 07: 55 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The dictator was Khrushchev - your spiritual father.
                        For these dictatorial habits and took him off.
                        Valuantarism.

                        And Stalin’s criminal record and exile was political.

                        And if you are about exs, then you should not confuse work undercover with criminality. Counterintelligence knew what she was doing. He didn’t rob ordinary people, but the English Bank yes , the wealthy nouveau riche-world-eaters in Baku, most of whom are foreigners ... expropriated. There was such a Baku Robin Hood - Joseph Dzhugashvili.
                        And Sverdlov drove into exile under the bench. yes He brought to nervous exhaustion.
                        People like these.
                        Even if they are not the secretary general, but a "noble robber" ... undercover. wink
                      5. 3danimal 13 January 2020 13: 57 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        People like these, and such people “love” people. And if, for the "victory of communism" it is necessary to sift the nth number of millions from this people - "a million deaths - statistics."
                        From ignorance, I think.
                        Where did you get that Khrushchev is dear to me? On the other hand, in comparison with Stalin, he is by no means less bloodthirsty.
          2. dirk182 4 January 2020 03: 53 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Goebbels' way in Russia has already been published. They even designated him a great prose writer. Either from a small mind, or ...
          3. 3danimal 13 January 2020 03: 55 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            You forgot that the factories were built by Americans and Swedes, and they were paid for by millions of compatriots who died of starvation (the Union in those years beat records for exporting products!).
            1. bayard 13 January 2020 07: 28 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: 3danimal
              You forgot that factories were built by Americans and Swedes

              And the Germans. Rather, they were built by Soviet people, and equipment, engineers and adjusters, the entire technical process - were delivered on a turn-key basis. And paid by counter deliveries. They were calculated until the end of each five-year plan - they did not interfere with debts.
              And for the famine in Ukraine and elsewhere, thank your "thaw" icon - Khrushchev and others like him. And also the crop failure that happened in those years on the whole planet. He was in North America too. And in Europe.
              The famine in Ukraine was organized by Khrushchev and Kaganovich, organizing a record delivery of grain to the state in a lean year. So that
              Quote: 3danimal
              The Union in those years beat records for the export of products!

              Nevertheless, industrialization was carried out.
              And thanks to this, they won the war!
              And people like you were saved from Auschwitz stoves.
              In Israel, for example, portraits of Stalin are still hanging in many houses - they remember who saved them and the state gave them.
              One of my acquaintances (the deceased already) - a serious scientist, geologist, father was shot in 1938 (he was a priest), he lies at the Butovo training ground.
              By decision of the Troika.
              With Khrushchev at the head.
              So he did not confuse the affairs of Khrushchev, Trotsky, Yagoda and others like them with Stalin.
              And did not identify.
              The person who really really abused people and who served these people knew too well.
              Stalin - served.
              Therefore, my acquaintance kept the complete collection of his works. Intravital.
              And how many extremities do not type in your mouth to spit on his bright name, still choke.
              Such is your plan.
              hi
              1. 3danimal 13 January 2020 13: 53 New
                • 0
                • 3
                -3
                Such as I was saved from the ovens of Auschwitz? Can you give me more details? On what basis did you draw a similar conclusion? )
                Without concluding a Pact with Hitler (including the secret part on the partition of Poland), it was possible to a large extent prevented / limited his aggression. (From the USSR).
                Stalin had a criminal mindset (past life does not disappear anywhere). Hence the politics of terror, contempt for people, attitude towards them as a resource. He served, in many ways, to himself, to keep himself at the peak of power. It is strange that all his competitors turned out to be spies (so that they could be executed).
                And one more thing: this staninaya Russian tradition - to believe that the tsar is good, just does not know that the officials put by them are bad - must be overcome. Enabling logic, for example.
  • user 3 January 2020 08: 53 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    .
    Not even for myself.
    For children and grandchildren.


    I agree, and we are still alive. Although this is a very big minus for the reformers.
  • Nick 13 January 2020 18: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Most Kind
    We can’t do anything, there’s only the Soviet legacy that will end soon, we’re a superpower, which has a fucking mountain of fossils and millionaires, only Ukrainian refugees have almost returned to their lives, because we don’t

    Well, they repented.
    Only it is better to repent and confess to the priest in the temple, he will forgive your sins.
  • Amateur 2 January 2020 07: 42 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Russian SSBNs of project 667BDRM "Dolphin" and 941 "Shark" at the pier. With one special charge, the enemy can destroy about 250-300 nuclear warheads, i.e. approximately 1/6 of the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal

    Yes! Read this in the morning. And the holidays are just beginning. What to write by the end, even scary to imagine! crying
    1. antivirus 2 January 2020 10: 48 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      What to write by the end, even scary to imagine!
      - nothing hangover - I surrender to my wife
  • U-58 2 January 2020 09: 18 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    Another 40 years ago, at the military department, we were taught the basics of nuclear ideology:
    If an American fleet such and such headed by an aircraft carrier enters the ocean, this means that this fleet provides and covers a nuclear submarine, making it safe to sail and exit to the position area.
    So, the problem with our Navy is the lack of ships in the ocean zone.
    To own and maintain such a fleet, even without aircraft carriers, is an incredible bunch of money.
    But there is no money, although you have to hold on.
    As at all times, everything depends on the economy, the strengthening of which is not expected in the next 15-20 years.
    Who is to blame, everyone knows to one degree or another, but what is to be done?
    Either create marine carriers of nuclear weapons with a different ideology (for example, the notorious underwater stationary rocket batteries), or, having a certain backlog on nuclear submarines, develop two dry components of strategic nuclear forces - aviation and a missile line of ballistic, winged, aeroballistic mixtures.
    Climb, finally, into space.
    Create a superheavy launch vehicle and launch a potential adversary anti-missile defense suppression station at the GSO.
    1. Ugolek 2 January 2020 09: 57 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      It is interesting, is it possible to implement a sort of analogue of electronic warfare only for the water element? It's cheaper than building a huge fleet. Imagine hundreds of underwater drones floating in predetermined areas and fonit, and hi track where the real boat, and where the drone. Interestingly, is this really possible to do?
      1. Fan-fan 2 January 2020 16: 37 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        It seems unrealistic, since they have not yet done so, probably the technique allows you to identify the necessary noise against the background of other noises.
    2. donavi49 2 January 2020 10: 17 New
      • 11
      • 1
      +10
      Well, it’s about at least maintaining the Soviet standard of cover, an even earlier sample. The multipurpose covers the strategist at the deployment stage.

      Unfortunately, this is completely impossible in the Far East - there alone Kuzbass should deploy Boreev and Dolphins, plus then drag Baton to crush AUGs.

      And the exit will have a picket from Virginia and Elk + allied boats.

      In the north, a little better, but not much. In general, with the existing updated RPKSNah - the cover is completely failed. Of the 7 promised boats, 1 was delivered.
      1. LomKuvaldych 2 January 2020 11: 03 New
        • 7
        • 7
        0
        Maybe this is the real plan of Putin.
    3. NordUral 2 January 2020 15: 28 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Who is to blame, everyone knows to one degree or another, but what is to be done?

      Think, analyze and draw conclusions! And go to the polls by voting as candidates from the people at all levels.
      1. Fan-fan 2 January 2020 16: 40 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        When voting, it is necessary to decide who the popular candidate is in order not to disperse the votes, since the enemies have one candidate and the enemies vote for him one, i.e. they don’t spray their voices on several candidates.
        1. NordUral 2 January 2020 17: 13 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          This is the main problem - the unity of a truly patriotic opposition and a single candidate, Fan-Fan. After all, how the people spread power in March 2018, skillfully slandering Grudinin.
          1. Alexey RA 4 January 2020 23: 04 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: NordUral
            After all, how the people spread power in March 2018, skillfully slandering Grudinin.

            This speaks only of one thing: the electorate still believes in power, but the communist capitalists no longer exist. For a lie to be effective, its source must be trusted.
            In addition, many still remember how Grandpa Sue frankly leaked his chance to become president by bending under EBN. So now he is perceived as yet another puppet of power imitating a “democratic choice”.
            1. NordUral 5 January 2020 13: 35 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Lying is about power, but not about Grudinin. And it’s time for Zyuganov to leave, if there is even a drop of conscience. Merged with Bortko Petersburg and at least that.
      2. dirk182 4 January 2020 04: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        But who will let them go there, from the people? Wait, the elections will be postponed. They see the same "unrest in the masses." So Putin is in a hurry with the annual message. January 15 will be able to contemplate.
        1. NordUral 4 January 2020 18: 02 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          It's time for the people to wake up before it’s too late, Denis.
          1. dirk182 4 January 2020 18: 16 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            I agree. But the trouble is that lately too many all kinds of teachings have been divorced. Alya "Putin is fighting the fifth column," "an enemy at the gates, we must tolerate more," etc. That is, people even make a decision and doubt it. There is no hope for opposition. One thing is good, the authorities understand that in the event of a serious society they will not be able to mobilize. Research on this subject is already there. I am really looking forward to 15.01. Most likely, this speech will clarify for us all the prospects for the next 5 years.
            1. NordUral 5 January 2020 13: 36 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Let's see, Denis. Only from him did not expect good for the country and do not expect.
    4. Doctor 3 January 2020 00: 12 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      So, the problem with our Navy is the lack of ships in the ocean zone.


      It does not pull yet. But it is acceptable to cover the areas of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, the Barents and Kara Seas. By the brigade of PLO frigates, by the brigade of at least Varshavyanka, by the squadron of PLO aircraft based on IL-76. Years for 6 and billions for 20 (dollars) can be met if desired. By this time, and Boreas ripen.
      1. Alexey RA 4 January 2020 23: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Arzt
        By the brigade of PLO frigates, by the brigade of at least Varshavyanka, by the squadron of PLO aircraft based on IL-76. Years for 6 and billions for 20 (dollars) can be met if desired

        Judging by the history of the creation of the previous PLO - IL-38 aircraft, it will only take five to six years to pair anti-submarine equipment and a base aircraft in a working complex.
    5. 3danimal 3 January 2020 05: 19 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Anti-missile defense stations? The main missile defense is a strike at the so-beloved "piers from which you can launch SLBMs."
      It will not work with submarine rocket batteries: they are also determined and the first to be neutralized at the beginning of a nuclear conflict.
      A fleet, relatively inexpensive and in a sufficient number of pennants (to cover SSBNs), will have to be built and maintained, apparently.
      Or refuse to build new SSBNs, and instead introduce versions of “Poplar”.
      And most importantly: it is necessary to create conditions for the normal growth of the economy, otherwise who will pay for all this?
  • LomKuvaldych 2 January 2020 11: 01 New
    • 22
    • 18
    +4
    Putin lost $ 17 billion in Venezuela. How much is this in terms of submarines?
    50 billion bucks for the Olympics. Is that how much?
    12 billion bucks for football.
    22 billion bucks at nuclear power plants in Turkey.
    25 billion bucks at nuclear power plants in Egypt.
    Debt written off to 100 billion bucks.
    Stealing from the budget in the year 2 trillion.
    Calculate how many submarines, ships, tanks, planes, missiles, schools, hospitals, etc.
    1. Aleks1973 2 January 2020 11: 20 New
      • 4
      • 8
      -4
      You do not confuse bucks with rubles? For example, about the Olympics and Football?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2020 16: 57 New
        • 11
        • 2
        +9
        Quote: Alex1973
        You do not confuse bucks with rubles? For example, about the Olympics and Football?

        The Olympics cost about 1,5 trillion. Putin announced a much smaller figure (214 billion rubles), but this is "actually for Olympic facilities," while infrastructure costs and so on have exceeded them
        1. bayard 2 January 2020 21: 41 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          Andrei, these expenses were not from the budget, but from that one - an inviolable small pillow from the IMF, to which the entire sum of oil and gas revenues is postponed. This money doesn’t go to the budget, it’s also impossible to develop the country and the economy ... but for international projects and for investments abroad - completely. So they spend them (if possible) on international sporting events, and in different parts of the country, and all this solely for the development of infrastructure. They will forget about the events, but the infrastructure will remain. Therefore, the "Olympiads", "Spartakiad", "Universiade", "Championships" and other occasions.
          For the same reason, projects in Turkey, Egypt ... do you think that's all? In Croatia, India, Germany, Venezuela and many others. etc. Moreover, these investments bring real income and are under the control of the Russian state, unlike the bonds of the Fed and other derivatives, for which these rules were created.
          Putin cannot change the rules.
          Alas, IT is a fact so far.
          But to use these rules, albeit indirectly, for the good of the state, he succeeds brilliantly. It is enough just to plunge slightly into the subject and everything becomes obvious to shine and pain.
          And if part of the "stolen" money from these (sports) projects goes to some good deeds ... to develop something useful, to build something necessary ... Which of these ... reserve funds, certainly do not pick out ...
          Maybe that's why, right after the Sochi Olympics, Putin said that "We will continue to hold international competitions and forums, and constantly in different regions of Russia ... For the sake of developing its infrastructure."
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 January 2020 01: 47 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            Happy New Year, dear bayard!
            Quote: bayard
            Andrei, these expenses were not from the budget, but from that - the inviolable money-box from the IMF, where the entire top of oil and gas revenues is postponed

            Alas, this is not so. Money for the Olympiad was taken from budgets of all levels - both federal and municipal, and everyone, including those who did not see this Olympiad in their eyes. I know this for sure.
            Quote: bayard
            This money doesn’t go to the budget, it’s also impossible to develop the country and the economy ... but for international projects and for investments abroad - completely.

            In fact, no one bothers. They should not be allowed to replenish the budget (because when prices fall, the budget will sharply shrink), but for individual projects, including economic development, they are not only possible, but necessary.
            Quote: bayard
            Putin cannot change the rules.

            Can. But he doesn’t want to.
            Quote: bayard
            It is enough just to plunge slightly into the subject and everything becomes obvious to shine and pain.

            Believe me, I dived into this topic rather not "slightly".
            1. bayard 3 January 2020 12: 15 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Happy New Year Andrew! drinks

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Can. But he doesn’t want to.

              Everything is somewhat more complicated there. And how much ... I would have to write this whole article. It just so happened that once upon a time (in the early 90s ... in the summer of 1992) I had the opportunity to offer one program for today's leading industries (oil and gas), to save them from collapse. And the first proposal on the creation of reserve funds (wages), and the methods of their formation, were proposed and adopted precisely then ... But the author means another, very respected person by me. Therefore, I know this cuisine, perhaps a little deeper ... Then these industries were saved from bankruptcy and sale to "Western investors" ... and much later control over them began to return to the state.
              As for the Olympics, championships, sports and athletics events, etc., of course, the budget participated in this, but then the bag was printed and roads, airports, sports and infrastructure facilities appeared. And if it is impossible to develop the economy, then at least infrastructure. In addition, albeit indirectly, but through contracts, part of the money still flowed into the economy.
              And if the Russian government cannot be called anything other than the occupation administration (economic bloc), then I personally have deep conscious respect for the president and his associates. If these “Kremlin towers” ​​were unanimous and unanimous ... Russia probably would not have existed anymore. But we are observing, directly according to Marxism-Leninism, “Unity and the struggle of opposites,” where there are many conventions and allegories, an undercover struggle and the total participation of external forces.
              An attempt to break this vicious circle was made in the fall of 2005, when after decisively repaying almost all loans from the IMF, there was an attempt to regain control over the financial sector in the country. All commercial banks had to consistently lose their licenses, and only state ones remained ... But two people appointed by Putin to implement this program were killed. Significantly. With an ultimatum from external forces (not public) ... with the threat of sabotage and civil war ... And the program was immediately curtailed. And they never returned to it ... The financial sector has not been touched since then ... And Russia has to live according to the rules agreed then ...
              Alas, this is so ...
              By the way, I saw one of those killed about a week and a half before the tragedy, at one event ... then it was decided to create the "Sharapov Economic Society" ...

              Therefore, Andrey, in this world everything is much more complicated than it seems ... but I hope it is not hopeless. hi
              And happy New Year again!
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 January 2020 15: 28 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Glad to welcome you again, dear bayard! drinks
                Quote: bayard
                Everything is a bit more complicated there.

                Well, in all likelihood, each of us will remain in our own opinion. So not for the sake of argument, but just for the sake of exchanging opinions, I share what I know (and as I see) myself. hi
                Quote: bayard
                As for the Olympics, the championship, sports and athletics events, etc., the budget certainly participated in this, but then the bag was printed and roads, airports, sports and infrastructure facilities appeared

                According to my data, the main sources of financing were 3. These are funds from the federal budget, funds from municipal budgets and funds from large companies. Municipalities and companies were "persuaded" to share. Who did not agree ... For example, the governor of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug had to part with his place.
                Quote: bayard
                An attempt to break this vicious circle was made in the fall of 2005, when after decisively repaying almost all loans from the IMF, there was an attempt to regain control over the financial sector in the country. All commercial banks had to consistently lose their licenses, and only state ones remained ... But two people appointed by Putin to implement this program were killed.

                Dear bayard, commercial banks have never played, never play, and will not play any noticeable role in the financial management of the country. Actually affects the situation of the Central Bank, which was planted to steer a woman who had not worked in the bank a day before, and the four largest state banks. The same thing happened in 2005.
                Quote: bayard
                Significantly. With an ultimatum from external forces (not public) ... with the threat of sabotage and civil war ... And the program was immediately curtailed.

                It is not collapsed in any way :)))) It was Mrs. Nabiullina who initiated the so-called "reorganization" of the banking sector, which completely undermined even the very flimsy positions that commercial banks had. That is, we have a contradiction: if Nabiullina is a protege of the West, then according to your logic, she should have supported the commercial sector, but in practice she had almost destroyed him.
                Quote: bayard
                And happy New Year again!

                And you too! Always glad to see your comments! hi
                1. bayard 3 January 2020 16: 08 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Nabiulina is a figure of compromise. One - appoints, the other - approves. The reorganization of private banks is about something else, this is happening all over the world now and is in an organized manner.
                  Private commercial banks were then (and now many have remained) pumps for pumping money abroad. Then (in 2005) the task of the so-called "nationalization of the Central Bank" and the return of issuing functions to the Treasury (Kennedy, incidentally, was killed precisely for such an attempt).
                  Now, the IMF sets quotas for the use of money earned into the budget, and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation only controls the execution of instructions ...
                  But it’s better to read about it with Mikhail Khazin (he is a good storyteller) or Katasonov.
                  hi
                  And I'm waiting for new publications on the naval theme.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 January 2020 11: 54 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Good day, dear bayard!
                    Quote: bayard
                    And I'm waiting for new publications on the naval theme.

                    Thank! I will try next week to lay out next material on the SSBN
                    Quote: bayard
                    Private commercial banks were then (and now many have remained) pumps for pumping money abroad.

                    There is a nuance. The fact is that the main withdrawal of funds from the Russian Federation was nevertheless carried out not through commercial banks, but according to the Yeltsin family scheme. Its essence is that our Gazprom sells oil and gas not to the end consumer in Europe, but to a gasket company registered abroad (although it is quite possible to operate with a Russian registration company, which only has a foreign branch). That "twists a little" the price tag, and a fair cache remains at its disposal. Europeans do not care - they get an agreed price, and Gazprom loses a part of the profit. As a result, gigantic sums of money “absolutely legally” remain at the disposal of the owners of these firms - no digging.
                    So VV Putin retained this scheme, but handed over the "reins" to people of his circle. Hence the joke that billionaires in the Russian Federation do not become, but are appointed :)))))
                    Quote: bayard
                    Now, the IMF sets quotas for the use of money earned into the budget, and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation only controls the execution of instructions

                    I believe this is due to Putin’s misunderstanding of the economy in general, and how to manage it. I just don’t see the real leverage over our overseas friends hi
                    1. bayard 4 January 2020 13: 50 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Commercial banks worked / work differently. As a rule, this is a chain of banks, firms of contractors (developers), a series of firms of subcontractors and financial gaskets. Let's say a small group of friends - graduates of the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University organize such \ such chains and use the administrative resources to get land for the construction of a new microdistrict ... for the money of citizens, of course. A loan is issued by a design bureau (having access to external financing), a subsidiary construction organization takes a building contract and concludes contracts with citizens. After some time, having erected the foundations and possibly part of the walls, all the money received is taken offshore ... and the construction company declares bankruptcy. The entire amount of the contract has been withdrawn, only a small part has been spent - to divert eyes, and the withdrawn amount exceeds the amount of loans issued, because people invested their own savings ... All deceived equity holders remained debtors of the bank and it will milk, confiscate property, force them to be refinanced. .. and bathe in money and human grief ... or maybe get a loan himself on the security of issued loans and evaporate in offshore.
                      Or, let's say, an interested group holds its mayor in power, and then receives municipal and state contracts for: maintaining city infrastructure, building and updating road networks, garbage collection, etc., etc., etc. That is, it sticks to the budget and pumps it into offshore through commercial \ commercial banks ...
                      And such schemes ... there are no numbers.
                      And in all these schemes, the key link for pumping funds to offshore is a commercial bank, of which there can be many, there may be one-day trials.
                      With the exclusion of this link as such (when there is only a limited number of state banks whose purpose is to serve the economy, business and citizens), many corruption schemes will disintegrate by themselves and will have to go on cash ... that is, to light up.
                      But, as you already understood, this did not happen ...
                      And about the control levers for the outside of the set \ appointed \ raised "elites" ... well shown in the movie "Sleeping".
                      ... there the key figures - coordinators were professors and teachers of the most prestigious universities ... And so not only in the film. Universities and the education system as such are a favorite medium for foreign intelligence ... yes
                      Best regards hi And I will wait with interest for your new article.
          2. dirk182 4 January 2020 04: 04 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The infrastructure remains, it is. That's just now everyone is howling from the burden of content
            1. bayard 4 January 2020 12: 12 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Airports, stations, roads, repaired and rebuilt city infrastructure, house facades, hotels, sports facilities and city transport ... They gave a man a house, but he howls that he needs to be cleaned and looked after? request
              It’s another matter that Russia practically lives in a war regime, with a large group of enemy saboteurs in its leadership ... When even budget funds allowed for expenditure are not spent on the country's development, and if they are not stolen, they simply remain unclaimed ... This is active enemy sabotage work ... and you are surprised that there is not enough money to support something.
              Here one pension reform is worth.
              Not for the sake of economy, but for the sake of a social explosion, self-destruction ...
              1. dirk182 4 January 2020 13: 06 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Then, for the sake of interest, I looked where money flowed into the river. I haven’t heard about enemies, to be honest. So, an interesting fact. While the regions see the muzzle, Moscow and the Tyumen Region are mastering astronomical budgets. And this is not the first year. Moreover, investments are visible in other regions during the Olympiad, no more. Then again the decline. Most likely you are right with the internal rats at the very top. Otherwise, it’s impossible to clarify
    2. Al_lexx 2 January 2020 11: 27 New
      • 8
      • 15
      -7
      Quote: LomKuvaldych
      Calculate how many submarines, ships, tanks, planes, missiles, schools, hospitals, etc.

      Nonsense is not necessary to fence!
      Firstly, if everything was decided only by money, then we ourselves would have long ago built a whole fleet of Mistrals, and not ordered on the side.
      Secondly, you, as a rabid liberal, are shouting that you put all the prosral, but you do not indicate in percentage terms what the figures you give from the total budget of the state mean, what exactly these investments gave us and how these amounts relate to the defense budget.
      I suspect that these numbers simply did not appear in your training manual. Yes, and why do you need them if you still don’t understand anything in them, just as you don’t understand the meaning of what you already wrote ..
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2020 17: 00 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Quote: Al_lexx
        Firstly, if everything was decided only by money, then we ourselves would have long ago built a whole fleet of Mistrals, and not ordered on the side.

        So we ordered a cut for the sake of, and improving relations with France for :)))
        Quote: Al_lexx
        Secondly, you, as a rabid liberal, are shouting that you put all the prosral, but you do not indicate in percentage terms what the figures you give from the total budget of the state mean, what exactly these investments gave us and how these amounts relate to the defense budget.

        Yes please. In 2011-2017 (before the interruption of the GPV 2011-2020), no more than 9 trillion was spent on the purchase of weapons. rub. About 1,5 trillion is being spent now. in year.
      2. Fan-fan 2 January 2020 17: 01 New
        • 13
        • 4
        +9
        I don’t have a training manual, but there is the Internet where it says that the Borey super-submarine with ballistic missiles costs 23 billion rubles, and in Russia only three of these boats are still in service. And here at a simple deputy Sobyanin they found property worth 5,5 billion rubles, this is a quarter of a nuclear submarine! And imagine how many thousands of such officials in Russia and property with values ​​from some of them and more. For example, cash and valuables worth more than 12 billion rubles were recently seized from two FSB officers, more than the famous Interior Ministry colonel Dmitry Zakharchenko, who was seized only 9 billion in cash. Only these 4 thieves stole a whole submarine from Russia!
        Here, at least half of these thieves should be squeezed, as if we had healed, we would not have to move pensions, but how many roads, housing, cities could be set up, how many new weapons to put in the army, and it would also be possible to pay in Poland each child monthly at 130 euros to adulthood? But the dream-dream, for example, the prosecutor’s office refused to check the same deputy Sobyanin, didn’t they even ask where she got so much from? Belonging to the "Edra" saves them from prison.
        1. Usher 2 January 2020 18: 30 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          I agree with you, and these are those who have passed. And how many steal like that? And how much they allegedly receive legally, hty actually steal in fairness. I don’t understand, I know one man, RFP 1 million rubles. And here it is interesting, not very smart, not charismatic, not an engineer, can not speak. Just the head of the project, such as responsibility on him, although he does not understand what he is working with. And lam ZP. I'm generally upset.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 January 2020 01: 49 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Fan-Fan
          but there is the Internet where it says that the Borey super-submarine with ballistic missiles costs 23 billion rubles

          It was in 2011. Today ... feel free to multiply by 2 or even more. Inflation-s. However, this does not cancel the justice of your words
        3. Alexey RA 4 January 2020 23: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Fan-Fan
          I don’t have a training manual, but there is the Internet where it says that the Borey super-submarine with ballistic missiles costs 23 billion rubles, and in Russia only three of these boats are still in service. And here at a simple deputy Sobyanin they found property worth 5,5 billion rubles, this is a quarter of a nuclear submarine!

          The problem is that in real life, money is not directly converted to goods. It is only with liberal economists that, having money, you can immediately receive or order a product. But in life it suddenly turns out that there is no world market in the military sector, and economic theories practically do not work. You can flood Sevmash’s dock with bucks - but the new submarine will not condense from them: at what pace the plant was built, with which it will build a few more years. It is possible to increase the purchase prices for Zvezda diesel engines at least tenfold - it will not help, anyway the plant will not issue more than two sets a year.
      3. Doctor 3 January 2020 00: 34 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Nonsense is not necessary to fence!

        The Olympics cost about 1,5 trillion.


        Back in 2013, they counted with specific examples and photos that could be built in the country with this money.

        https://omvesti.ru/2013/02/08/vmesto-olimpiady-v-sochi/

        The result for those who are too lazy to follow the link.

        To summarize: With the money that swelled into the Olympics in Sochi, it would be possible to build a new pool, a stadium, an ice palace and a sports and recreation center in ALL CITIES OF THE COUNTRY.
        For each boy / youth aged 5-25, give a soccer ball, a basketball, hockey skates, rollers
        Give each girl / girl aged 5-25 years a volleyball ball, figure skates, rollers
        AND ABSOLUTELY EVERY resident of the country to present a rope with an electronic meter.
        And there would still be about 20 billion rubles!
    3. NordUral 2 January 2020 15: 31 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      If only bucks were the case, Artem. Where is that industry and science? In the past, unfortunately. Today I just read that half of the military-industrial complex was in Ukraine, moreover, strategic or key industries.
      1. D-ug 2 January 2020 15: 40 New
        • 5
        • 23
        -18
        Quote: NordUral
        Where is that industry and science? In the past, unfortunately.

        You see how many strange people are “believers” that in the USSR there was science and industry.
        And the real story of the fate of these chimeras they do not need. A very recent story. Point blank they do not notice that there has never been and never is any science in the USSR. And the factories for the production of crap (the so-called "Soviet products"), they fell apart themselves, as soon as people had a choice what to buy.
        1. NordUral 2 January 2020 15: 58 New
          • 12
          • 3
          +9
          Shit is you, D-ug.
          1. D-ug 2 January 2020 16: 01 New
            • 0
            • 17
            -17
            One cannot expect another from an individual with such an avatar.
            1. NordUral 2 January 2020 16: 03 New
              • 8
              • 2
              +6
              And do not hesitate, bot Simon.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2020 17: 05 New
          • 8
          • 1
          +7
          Strange, the spring is still far away, and seasonal aggravation is already in full swing ...
        3. Elturisto 2 January 2020 18: 19 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Have a bite ...
        4. The Siberian barber 2 January 2020 19: 24 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Go to the store, behind the brain!)))
          1. pin_code 3 January 2020 14: 56 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            and they won’t sell it in the store. let it go homelessly better, then it lives, most likely in an apartment built in the USSR.
      2. LomKuvaldych 2 January 2020 19: 35 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        So for these billions of dollars it was possible to finance science and industry.
        What was China 20 years ago like? But they are developing science and industry, and now they are building the destroyer in 1 year, and we and the frigates are busy for 10 years.
        1. Karen 2 January 2020 19: 41 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: LomKuvaldych
          What was China 20 years ago like?

          Dear, I first learned about the investor in China in 1986 ... At first I was surprised at the decision of the son of the minister, but they explained to me the reason for the unpatriotic office work ...
  • Pavel57 2 January 2020 11: 26 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    It follows from the logic of the article that the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces should be minimized, since its stability is not ensured.
    1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 05: 50 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Since there is nothing to cover, it must be minimized. Or build a fleet (does not work in a reasonable time).
      Then option one is to increase the share of soil complexes and missile silos.
  • Zaurbek 2 January 2020 11: 56 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    And how is the search for air targets from under the water? ... What would a missile with an AGSN need to have an idea of ​​the air situation ?!
    1. Shopping Mall 2 January 2020 12: 54 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      Quote: Zaurbek
      And how is the search for air targets from under the water? ... What would a missile with an AGSN need to have an idea of ​​the air situation ?!


      Periscope. Optical and TV channels. In theory, in the future, a conformal radar can be installed.

      It makes sense to use an air defense system only if the submarine commander understands that he was found with high probability and launched an attack. For example, dropped a torpedo. In this case, the torpedo can be intercepted by anti-torpedoes, and the carrier shot down from the air defense system to prevent further pursuit and localization of the location of the submarine. Now, when meeting with anti-submarine aircraft, there is only one scenario - trying to hide. And the air defense system will give a chance to implement another scenario - aggressive self-defense.
      1. Robertocalos 2 January 2020 18: 43 New
        • 2
        • 5
        -3
        Poseidon will see the trace from the periscope earlier than the PL plane and will drop the torpedo.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 January 2020 01: 54 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: AVM
        Periscope. Optical and TV channels.

        That is, the SSBN must be followed at periscope depth .... the best gift from a foreign PLO is impossible to come up with. You mean the thermocline, as I understand it, you never heard? Bringing the submarine under the periscope, you simplify its detection at times, if not by orders of magnitude.
        Quote: AVM
        It makes sense to use an air defense system only if the submarine commander understands that he was found with high probability and launched an attack.

        That is, first we substitute a blow, and then heroically shoot back ?! :))))
      3. mik193 4 January 2020 19: 32 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Andrey, good day. If possible, please correct the caption for the black and white photograph. I have written here in the comments what kind of projects are the RPK SN. Thanks in advance.
      4. Alexey RA 4 January 2020 23: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: AVM
        Periscope. Optical and TV channels.

        The periscope detection range for the already elderly aviation AN / APS-134 radar is up to 32 nautical miles.
        Another disadvantage for submarines is the need to go at periscope depth.
        Quote: AVM
        In theory, in the future, a conformal radar can be installed.

        We don’t have enough radar marks from the periscope, so we also screw the source of radio emission to it. In order to cover the submarine with a guarantee, and already at a long distance. And worst of all, the range of detection of a radar signal by means of RTR is always greater than the range of operation of the radar itself: RTR calmly catches a “direct” pulse at distances at which the signal reflected from the target in the radar receiver is drowning in noise.
      5. VALENTIN-37 13 January 2020 14: 55 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        These are mutually exclusive tasks. Either we dodge the torpedo, or we shoot down the plane.
        But what about the notification about updating submarines?
        To hide from aviation in a combat environment is unrealistic. No one will follow the submarine.
        "Poseidon" will immediately, possibly without the use of the RSL.
  • Zaurbek 2 January 2020 11: 57 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    This is why a couple of AUGs in the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Ocean are needed to cover the deployment of nuclear submarines.
    1. SVD68 2 January 2020 12: 37 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: Zaurbek
      This is why a couple of AUGs in the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Ocean are needed to cover the deployment of nuclear submarines.

      But isn't it too expensive with our low KOH? Wouldn't it be better to rely on mine and mobile soil ICBMs?
      1. PSih2097 2 January 2020 22: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: SVD68
        Wouldn't it be better to rely on mine and mobile soil ICBMs?

        the same eggs, only in profile, the meaning of the BZHRK - the PGRK is monitored in the same way as the SSBN.
        1. SVD68 3 January 2020 06: 25 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: PSih2097

          the same eggs, only in profile, the meaning of the BZHRK - the PGRK is monitored in the same way as the SSBN.

          BJRK tracked even better. While Russian Railways are civilian, all traffic schedules will be known in advance.
          PGRK may be tracked in the same way as the SSBNs, but missile flight times to them differ. During this time, PGRK can have time, both to change the dislocation, and to shoot.
        2. Alexey RA 4 January 2020 23: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: PSih2097
          PGRK is monitored in the same way as the SSBN.

          If deployment is delayed, then the PGRK still wins: if the strategic nuclear forces focus on the PGRK, the situation "40% of strategic UBCs are assembled at two bases advanced to the very border"impossible. But in the SSBN it is.
          If the deployment is successful, then PGRK also benefits: RPKSN launchers run up kits 16 pieces each, and it’s possible for the PGRK to deploy separate launchers in such a way that each of them needs to have its own MFV.
          1. PSih2097 5 January 2020 01: 23 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            If deployment is delayed, then PGRK still wins

            PGRK initially from the creation of satellites at gunpoint, a step to the right - to the left, war, I told this to the chief of staff of the Orenburg Division, and even then, one grandfather (strategist) was sitting in the mine - the other was experiencing air defense / missile defense ...
            1. Alexey RA 5 January 2020 01: 37 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: PSih2097
              PGRK initially from the creation of satellites at gunpoint, step right - left, war

              Like the SSBN bases: the mass exit of submarines is a sure signal of preparation for war.
              Here are just two bases in the SSBN. And both of them - 12 miles from the border. And not somewhere in Mari El, Altai Territory, Irkutsk or Sverdlovsk Region. smile
      2. 3danimal 3 January 2020 05: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The only reasonable way out good
    2. 3danimal 3 January 2020 05: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And Storm nuclear carriers in the amount of 6 pieces (for rotation). And "better than the Americans")
      By the end of the century have time to build?
  • cherkas.oe 2 January 2020 12: 57 New
    • 3
    • 7
    -4
    The author, from my point of view, was slightly overworked and caught up with such a terrible thing that it seems that we are standing on the shore naked, without panties, with our hands tied and waiting for the dragon to arrive and have us ..
    1. Fan-fan 2 January 2020 17: 06 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      And you described us almost correctly, only we still have cowards and we don’t wait for dragons, because you are sure that Russia can easily do the whole world in ruins ....
      1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 05: 55 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        On TV they talk about nuclear transfusion, they won’t tell a lie ..
  • D-ug 2 January 2020 12: 59 New
    • 4
    • 19
    -15
    The sunset of the nuclear triad?

    The nuclear triad in modern conditions is nonsense. It’s time to cut all these “swans” and “bears” into scrap metal. There is no benefit from them and never will be. But there are costs. And considerable.
    1. bayard 2 January 2020 22: 54 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      You're right, Joni, cut your Tridents at number 2.
      And "Ohio" cut.
      And aircraft carriers.
      No use to them.
      And the expenses are SMALL. yes
      1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 05: 57 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The author argued that there was practically nothing to cover the SSBN. And “get ready to shoot from the piers” - make a gift in the form of a convenient target for a disarming strike.
        1. bayard 3 January 2020 12: 57 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          The author argued that there was practically nothing to cover the SSBN. And “get ready to shoot from the piers” - make a gift in the form of a convenient target for a disarming strike.

          From half to two-thirds of the total list of missile carriers will always be in the bases. In the event of a war, they should only shoot from the pier; there will be no time for deployment. So the problem exists in any case, with any available surface fleet. And under the Union it was like that.
          True, they have resumed work on building rocky shelters for nuclear submarines in the bases - wet docks inside the mountains. In Kamchatka and in the Northern Federal District, such work was resumed, and the readiness there was very high, 70–90 percent.
          But the fleet is still being built to provide deployment cover, although the programs were slowed down for 4-5 years due to the lack of engines. “Admiral Nakhimov” will be launched this year, modernization 1155 has begun, “Admiral Kasatonov” is completing the test. Two 22350+ were laid last year, and two more will be laid this year ...
          Of course, there are more problems than accomplishments.
          But the Navy is being built for a long time.
          This is an axiom.
          And we really need a FULL base aviation PLO.
          1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 13: 41 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Our fleet is being built even longer ... And with engines (our own) there are very big problems. The Chinese, it seems, didn’t pay off.
          2. Alexey RA 4 January 2020 23: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: bayard
            From half to two-thirds of the total list of missile carriers will always be in the bases. In the event of a war, they should only shoot from the pier; there will be no time for deployment. So the problem exists in any case, with any available surface fleet. And under the Union it was like that.

            In this case, the construction of the SSBN is a cargo cult, "so it was like the states".
            The meaning of the presence of SSBNs is in their presence at sea. If we want to always keep 2/3 of the boats at the base, then we simply will tear ourselves up to maintain a grouping sufficient for the constant combat duty of such an amount of SSBNs that guarantees unacceptable damage.
            And do not blame the USSR for our fleet in relation to the combat duty of ships was an example of how "no need to do". The KOH Union had 0,23-0,25 for the SSBN. And only in the 80s did they manage to raise it to 0,35 - at the cost of assault and exhausting all ship, coastal and human resources ©
            While the Yankees stably kept KOH 0,6, raising it in the 80s to 0,7.
            1. bayard 5 January 2020 02: 42 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              In this case, the construction of the SSBN is a cargo cult, "so that it was like the States."

              Well, we are not discussing a spherical horse in a vacuum. Those SSBNs that the fleet has are the legacy of the USSR, plus the mortgaged and already received Boreas.
              They just already are. And so they need to be used.
              And the fact that all 100% cannot be constantly in the sea is an axiom. The maximum KOH in our conditions cannot be higher than 30 - 40%, this is tested by practice and it is a given. But at the same time, the cruiser standing in the base near the pier may well be on duty in the event of a sudden strike by the enemy - to participate in the reciprocal strike. Fortunately, all the missiles that are now in service are taken to the United States and from the base.

              And the question now is not whether to build or not to build - they are already being built and are available. And no one will cut them into scrap.
              The question is more correctly posed as follows: what forces and means do we need to develop for the full and protected duty of the SSBN in the "bastions". What surface ships, airplanes of base aviation PLO, bottom fields of acoustic sensors, satellite constellations ...
              Even in the late Soviet times, one Dolphin-style SSBN could completely destroy up to 70% of the US economic potential with its full salvo. So if in the event of a sudden ... and even a missed (which is now extremely unlikely) strike, at least one such nuclear submarine survives in the sea, then it will drive the United States into the Stone Age with its retaliatory strike, and neighbors and other well-wishers will finish it off. ..
              So this is not a cargo cult, but it can become one if you do not develop the remaining forces of the fleet in proportion and balance.
              And the ICBMs of soil and mine based are already being built and deployed. With this, everything is fine.
          3. VALENTIN-37 13 January 2020 15: 08 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            From half to two-thirds of the total payroll will always be in the bases
            First line. The rest are uninteresting.
            COMPLETE basic aviation PLO
            Is everything chocolate covered on deck? As a Plošnik I’ll tell you, this is utopia. I'm about FULL.
            In Kamchatka
            And in what place do they create such shelters? There is a seismic zone, by the way.
            1. bayard 13 January 2020 21: 21 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I actually wrote about the submarine. The fact that on combat duty in deployment areas in peacetime and in terms of technical capabilities, we can in no way be more than 30 - 35%. Therefore, the database will be at least 70%. Permanently .
              But they will be able to shoot back from the pier if the database of calculations in the database is organized. Reciprocating.
              I'm about submarines.
              And basic anti-submarine aviation is an extremely necessary matter, but it is easier with them. If any. For many of us have strong doubts about the combat effectiveness of this.

              About shelters in rock masses - this is also for the nuclear submarines. These were built at sunset of the Union. And almost finished. Nearly . In readiness 70 - 80% were. But the Union was gone and work was stopped.
              Now resumed, sort of like last year. Both in Kamchatka and in the SF. By the type of how in Balaclava, only the largest.
              This is so that the submarines in the base are not destroyed by a sudden raid.
              The thing is necessary, despite the fact that it is easier to complete than from scratch.
              Quote: VALENTIN-37
              COMPLETE basic aviation PLO
              Is everything chocolate covered on deck?

              But this is better. You answer - as a PLOSHNIK.
              We still have a lot of chocolate-free stuff in the Army and Navy.
              And with AWACS, and with the base aviation PLO. And from the deck, which, while the "Kuznetsov" is being repaired, read what is not.
              Or are you talking about helicopters?
              So those just fly, praise of Ahura Mazda.
              1. VALENTIN-37 16 January 2020 11: 06 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Well, with turntables, and especially with their HCV, worse than PLA.
                Although the ILs with Novella pulled up.
                Until 2015, I did not hear about rock shelters for submarines in Vilyuchinsk.
                Water park unnecessary to anyone, yes, built)))
                And about the shelters? Well, in due time, I flew around and covered everything there.
                I just can’t visually imagine where you can do all this.

                1. bayard 16 January 2020 15: 51 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: VALENTIN-37
                  I just can’t visually imagine where you can do all this.

                  Ask Aristarkh Ludwigovich, he wrote an article about this and brought one photograph. Judging by the photo, this is not in the bay itself, but somewhere nearby ... and a dam with an arc in front of the entrance to the wet dock - so that it does not flood with storms. For the completion of such facilities (and the construction of new ones), the construction battalion (military construction corporation) has now been resumed.
                  1. VALENTIN-37 19 January 2020 13: 18 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Until 2015, there was nothing planned. And in general, they somehow managed from the 50s, when my cousin started the service there, from the crew of Kobzar, on the infamous K-129.
                    And one was not an example more and military services.
                    I have the opinion of one-next cut of funds. Boat floating THREE left.
  • Operator 2 January 2020 13: 34 New
    • 4
    • 11
    -7
    How can super-duper torpedoes rescue submarines from anti-submarine aircraft with sonar buoys, sea-surface surveillance radars, quantum magnetometers and nuclear depth charges? And yes - do not offer the installation of the S-500 on nuclear submarines laughing

    “nothing will change the adoption of Poseidon unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), since carriers are destroyed before the launch of the UAV. And the invulnerability of the Poseidon UAV itself remains a big question.” - NPO Poseidon with an unlimited cruising range will need nuclear submarines only for the period of mastering new technology, after treating the children’s sores, Poseidons will completely go swimming from Russian piers. As for the vulnerability of NPA: anyone can compare the levels of the physical fields of the 40-ton Poseidon with the similar indicators of the 14000-ton Ash.

    The prospects for the submarine forces of the Russian Navy are clear and understandable:
    - strategic NPO "Poseidon" with 100-MT combat units;
    - Multipurpose nuclear submarines Laika with hypersonic missiles Zircon and super-cavitating RT Predator-M (Flurry-2).
    1. Nehist 2 January 2020 14: 06 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Are you talking about Poseidon again? First you read yourself carefully !!! What you write about Poseidon, its capabilities. It must have a displacement of not less than 1600 tons. That you can’t fit into the declared mass of 40 tons
    2. Robertocalos 2 January 2020 18: 44 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      They won’t save in any way. 1 plane will drown the boat, unless she is very lucky.
    3. 3danimal 3 January 2020 06: 04 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Poseidon is supposed to be high speed and very loud. And with depth bombs and torpedoes (including those with nuclear warheads), you can drown quite a few "super torpedoes".
      Zircon: where is it, what does it look like (so far only X-51 Waverider is visible) and what kind of beast? Where are successful scramjet tests?
      Super-cavitating ... A flurry could not be aimed at the target and therefore had JBCh. 2nd version can?
      And all these plans are given away by the desire to make a child prodigy, and therefore, things are not going well in the defense industry.
  • Sancho_SP 2 January 2020 14: 19 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Everything is much simpler.

    1. At the same time there is one boat in the port, the other two at sea. Secretly they will leave, not secretly - it does not matter. Well, a third of the warheads lost from a disarming strike is more than acceptable.

    2. In the event of a disarming strike, it is most important to ensure a guaranteed retaliatory strike. From the pier, from the depths, from under the ice - not so important. It is also advisable to find out who the enemy is, but this is not so important, you can evenly extinguish everyone, it will not be worse.
    1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 06: 09 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Evenly extinguish all - there is not enough ammunition. But “all” forces (including nuclear ones) will have more. The situation - your missiles are over: can the attacked (all?) Countries continue to carry out nuclear attacks on military facilities, infrastructure, cities?
      1. Sancho_SP 3 January 2020 13: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What is not enough? For existing nuclear-weapon states, a few warheads are already unacceptable damage.
        1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 13: 42 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Do you believe that their military will not begin to strike at the nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation to prevent other attacks?
          1. Sancho_SP 4 January 2020 12: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I believe that if they start to strike, everything else will no longer matter.

            The very essence of deterrence from the use of nuclear weapons is гарантированный unacceptable damage to everyone.
            1. 3danimal 4 January 2020 21: 22 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              But then it’s not worth it to talk about the possibility of nuclear strikes against nuclear-weapon-possessing countries with ease and retirement.
              I am sure that ALL exchange will not end. There will be a terrible situation in which the survivors find themselves. And everyone will need each other's help.
              But those who began to scatter missiles "all in a row" are unlikely to help.
              1. Sancho_SP 6 January 2020 01: 41 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                No, not like that. The participants in a nuclear war will mutually destroy each other. And those who remain on the sidelines will begin to divide the property and power of those destroyed.

                So the less they stay away, the more even the balance of forces will be after.


                And frankly speaking - we have only one nuclear adversary - NATO. A NATO membership should guarantee a dozen warheads in the event of a mess. With China, I can’t imagine a conceivable scenario for them to use a bomb
                1. 3danimal 9 January 2020 10: 08 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Do you think that the entire territory of the Russian Federation or the USA will be burned out? ) There are not enough charges. Trite.
                  But in the direction that began to launch missiles at all around, much more “gifts” will arrive.
                  You probably think in terms of “all residents of the Russian Federation instantly cease to exist, so you can not think about survivors (at least 20-30%)? (In an ideal theoretical model))
    2. Alexey RA 5 January 2020 00: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Everything is much simpler.

      1. At the same time there is one boat in the port, the other two at sea. Secretly they will leave, not secretly - it does not matter. Well, a third of the warheads lost from a disarming strike is more than acceptable.

      "Mice, become hedgehogs". ©
      Just point 1 for our Navy is the most difficult. For even the mighty USSR was able to provide KOH = 0,25: "There are three boats in the port at the same time, one in the sea."
      And until our admirals cease to consider coastal infrastructure, the conditions of basing and repair (as well as the living conditions of the crew and recovery after a campaign) as something purely unimportant and not worth their highest attention - it will be so. And the more ships they have, the less KOH will be, because with an increase in the number of ships without taking into account the coastal infrastructure, the basing conditions will only worsen, and the ship’s shipyard will remain the same.

      So far, the only one who was able to provide the regime "There is one boat at a time in the port, the other two at sea"- this is our opponent. KON PLARB USA = 0,6 (in the 80s raised to 0,7).
      1. VALENTIN-37 13 January 2020 15: 14 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        I’ll clarify. And the sense of KOH, for example, 0,5 is not much, if secrecy is not ensured.
  • Robertocalos 2 January 2020 15: 12 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    Once again I repeat my thought. Cat and mouse games with the American Navy are a continuous arms race with a well-known winner. You can save your SSBNs in relative safety in a much simpler way. Close the Sea of ​​Okhotsk as a strategic security zone of the Russian Federation. We will agree with the Japanese. The rest there is nothing to do - the ball is big, a lot of water. The sea and so de jure is almost entirely Russian, it remains to squeeze a few points that are important to us. These are purely diplomatic measures that the Russian Federation can do. After that, any non-our submarine or warship is automatically drowned there. The sea is not small, not a puddle, like the Baltic Sea, does not completely freeze. To build on Sakhalin several bases with underground protected hangars for maintenance, bunkering, minor repairs is a costly, but elevating business.
    That's all. There can’t be someone else’s aviation PLO there. Against alien submarines, you can put your Sosus. What is the risk? A dozen nuclear strikes in the water? They definitely won’t drown everyone. Will they put Berkov along the border of the Kuril ridge to shoot BR at the launch stage? Almost 1000 km from the coast can be driven away by coastal missiles and basic aviation. What is utopia?
    1. donavi49 2 January 2020 16: 02 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      But why is that all? The same problem will be solved even better (you indicate that the SSBN should be taken to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk) - 100 mobile Yars in Kamchatka. Total missiles even more. Their defeat is even more difficult - for the routes, the available cover schemes (for which nothing is particularly expensive to purchase), dispersal. And in which case - the flight section is even shorter (Kamchatka is closer to the United States than the Sea of ​​Okhotsk).

      Well, all this for the price of 2 SSBN Borey, by force.
      1. Robertocalos 2 January 2020 16: 16 New
        • 5
        • 6
        -1
        Satellite yars can be detected and attacked by tomahawks from the sea. Nuclear submarines - are not tied to the base, they can also leave the Sea of ​​Okhotsk if necessary. But to make the main base of the SSBN in its own protected area - what could be better? Go find a boat there without sonar. Moreover, the Kuril ridge is a natural fortified area where air defense / missile defense / missile defense can be deployed, plus RTOs and submarines are allowed to continuously patrol 200 miles from the coast. Better to protect the boat is impossible.
        1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 06: 13 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          From a satellite, you are tortured to find Yars (like AUG in the ocean) - they do not stand still. Tomahawk can only hit a stationary target (SSBN at the pier).
          1. Robertocalos 3 January 2020 13: 26 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            In Kamchatka there are not many places where Yarsam is convenient to move around. So it does not start, there are technical capabilities.
            1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 13: 49 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              There is enough space inside the Russian Federation. The range is intercontinental.
      2. bk0010 2 January 2020 18: 22 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        It is necessary to make an analogue for the Yars for SLBMs, so that while the sailors are standing at the pier, these rockets scatter around. The sailors finished the repair, the rockets were returned to the boat, the boat to the sea, and the cars to repair. But, I’m afraid that a marine missile will have to be finalized for land duty - strengthened to compensate for longitudinal loads.
        1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 06: 15 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Such products should not be shaken many times. Especially given the industriousness and accuracy / pedantry of many fellow citizens, including those who have recently become them.
    2. VALENTIN-37 13 January 2020 15: 19 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Close the Sea of ​​Okhotsk as a Strategic Security Zone of the Russian Federation
      It will work if you dig a channel from Vilyuchinsk to Ust-Bolsheretsk.
      They still need to be brought to the straits.
      Everything has already been tried, dozens of times. NOT OKAY!!!
  • bars1 2 January 2020 16: 25 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Robertocalos
    We will agree with the Japanese

    Well you said! Who are the Japanese in such matters. In military politics, they are completely dependent on the Americans. You don’t think that the Americans will give our SSBN such a chance?
    1. Robertocalos 2 January 2020 16: 51 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Where are they going? Yapov have their own interests, this card can be played.
      Moreover, it is possible to agree with the States. It is not a question of leaving all the SSBNs in Okhotsk. Let them consider it. Only this quest will be already at their expense.
      1. VALENTIN-37 13 January 2020 15: 21 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Yapov have their own interests, this card can be played.
        Nude, nude ... act ... with a country that has been de jure at war since 1945. Moreover, the first signatory violated the USSR.
  • bars1 2 January 2020 16: 30 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    And why should the SSBNs have patrols in international waters, let’s say no further than 100 km from our shores? to create an anti-submarine bastion at such a depth is quite realistic. Yes, and the idea of ​​small SSBNs at 4-6 is not bad.
    1. Robertocalos 2 January 2020 16: 57 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Because in the open ocean, our boats are in sight. There NATO base aviation flies and underwater hunters guard them, which are many times more than our boats. As a result, the Americans have an online picture of the movement of our SSBNs, which in “Time H” means a guaranteed 3 destruction within minutes.
      Competition with a clear outcome.
    2. Vladimir1155 5 January 2020 22: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      because in this case the yars are more convenient, namely, only nuclear submarines can strike closer to the enemy
  • bars1 2 January 2020 16: 33 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Robertocalos
    We will agree with the Japanese.

    The Americans forbid the Americans to decide such issues on their own. Like many others ... The last proud samurai committed suicide in August 1945.
    1. Robertocalos 2 January 2020 16: 54 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Nevertheless, in most matters, Japan is subjective. And whines about the islands and the peace treaty. Of course, no islands can be given away, but a piece of mainland land is possible. With the condition of demilitarization of Hokkaido. And the prohibition of entry into OM foreign naval forces. Under this shop and the peace treaty is not a sin to sign.
      1. Fan-fan 2 January 2020 17: 49 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        We cannot ban foreign vessels from entering the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. There are international laws that we signed, according to which our only 20 kilometer strip of sea from the coast. And the width of some straits of the Kuril ridge is 50-60 km. And that part of the sea that the UN recognized as our small, and even then it is ours only for economic activities, and everyone can go there.
        1. Robertocalos 2 January 2020 18: 12 New
          • 1
          • 5
          -4
          International laws are subject to change. And the UN sent almost the entire Sea of ​​Okhotsk to the Russian exclusive economic zone. The Sea of ​​Okhotsk is the inland sea of ​​the Russian Federation and Japan (in a much smaller part of it), so there is where to go precisely through the diplomatic path.
        2. Robertocalos 2 January 2020 18: 32 New
          • 0
          • 4
          -4
          Well, do not forget about Tuzla. To wash the braids between the islands is a matter of technology. Against Laperouse - 40 km. That is, only the Russian Federation and Japan, there is no one else to ask.
          1. Vladimir1155 5 January 2020 22: 51 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I studied this idea, there too deep it is not the Gulf of Finland
          2. VALENTIN-37 13 January 2020 15: 35 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            To wash the braids between the islands is a matter of technology.
            laughing
            There is rocky soil and awesome currents. If it’s not for them, then everything will be torn down with ice, all your washing up.
            Find on the net the location of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and get acquainted, but I saw it live.


        3. Tiksi-3 3 January 2020 09: 37 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Fan-Fan
          We cannot ban foreign vessels from entering the Sea of ​​Okhotsk

          how else can we, if the sea is recognized as inland !, and Okhotskoye is recognized as such !!!
          1. Robertocalos 3 January 2020 13: 30 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            What are we talking about. This is the work of diplomacy. Complex but feasible. In general, the spill of Laperouse can be closed with a bridge, like Kerch. Then, without permission, not a single vessel will crawl through. And Yapy will also build a bridge with a cry of cheers in order to have a connection with the continent. And for their boats to organize several hidden passages on the Kuril ridge. So let the Americans look for SSBNs there, in the open ocean or in the closed.
    2. Ugolek 2 January 2020 18: 39 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      You see how many strange people are “believers” that in the USSR there was science and industry.
      And the real story of the fate of these chimeras they do not need. A very recent story. Point blank they do not notice that there has never been and never is any science in the USSR.


      The words of the patient on his head ..

      The fact that there were Nobel Prize winners is so, not an argument. The fact that planes flew, rockets put spacecraft into space is nothing, not counting. The fact that the first nuclear-powered icebreaker, the first nuclear power station in the world were built in the USSR, is also so past. It is not convenient to notice that a whole galaxy of scientists of the USSR created whole theories and moved world science forward.

      Yes, you are a friend just a freak ..
    3. 3danimal 3 January 2020 06: 16 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And it’s good for us to do away with it.
      As for most peaceful Japanese, we do not forget, now it is the 3rd world economy.
  • bars1 2 January 2020 18: 23 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Robertocalos
    Because in the open ocean, our boats are in sight.

    Well, why are our SSBNs so stubbornly they want to shove it into the open ocean, if they have guaranteed kirdyk there ?!
    1. Robertocalos 2 January 2020 18: 49 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Yes, and a warrant for defunct ships and ICAPL to cover. I also do not understand
  • Usher 2 January 2020 18: 24 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Quote: LomKuvaldych
    Putin lost $ 17 billion in Venezuela. How much is this in terms of submarines?
    50 billion bucks for the Olympics. Is that how much?
    12 billion bucks for football.
    22 billion bucks at nuclear power plants in Turkey.
    25 billion bucks at nuclear power plants in Egypt.
    Debt written off to 100 billion bucks.
    Stealing from the budget in the year 2 trillion.
    Calculate how many submarines, ships, tanks, planes, missiles, schools, hospitals, etc.

    What nonsense are you talking about, these fakes have long been exposed. These are not debts in the literal sense, and they cannot be converted into real money, especially in nuclear submarines. And what do you dislike about football and sports? they don’t build stadiums, they scored outs for sports, they build stadiums, they scream money. You do not please? Although I myself am not a fan of sports, but still follow him.
    1. Robertocalos 2 January 2020 18: 50 New
      • 4
      • 6
      -2
      A stadium was built in my city. The holiday has passed. Thanks to all. Now its maintenance costs 1 million rubles per day. From a poor budget. Something like this.
      1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 06: 20 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        They will tell you now that "greatness" is worth any number of untreated children and hungry old people ...
    2. bk0010 2 January 2020 20: 22 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Usher
      These are not debts in the literal sense, and they cannot be converted into real money, especially in nuclear submarines.
      Yah? We have forgiven a debt of $ 100 billion to African countries, but the Chinese have not. For example, they are taking away in Kenya the port of Mombasa, built on part of the very $ 100 billion.
      1. Usher 3 January 2020 10: 55 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        Quote: bk0010
        Quote: Usher
        These are not debts in the literal sense, and they cannot be converted into real money, especially in nuclear submarines.
        Yah? We have forgiven a debt of $ 100 billion to African countries, but the Chinese have not. For example, they are taking away in Kenya the port of Mombasa, built on part of the very $ 100 billion.

        Exactly what? And I did not know))) Thank you. Apparently you can also chegoy then do not know)))
  • Usher 2 January 2020 18: 25 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Zaurbek
    And how is the search for air targets from under the water? ... What would a missile with an AGSN need to have an idea of ​​the air situation ?!

    Push the periscope with the antenna and look)))
    1. Robertocalos 2 January 2020 18: 51 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      And Poseidon looks at you and drops a torpedo)
  • bars1 2 January 2020 19: 32 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Usher
    Push the periscope with the antenna and look)))

    Poseidon only needs this!
  • evgen1221 2 January 2020 19: 33 New
    • 1
    • 6
    -5
    We lay on the ground Poseidon in peacetime, secretly. (With self-destruction from the curious). We change as necessary, they lie unresponsive and when necessary they will sail where it should be.
    1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 06: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Are you going to produce a hundred of them?
  • Old26 2 January 2020 19: 37 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    Quote: bars1
    And why should the SSBNs have patrols in international waters, let’s say no further than 100 km from our shores? to create an anti-submarine bastion at such a depth is quite realistic. Yes, and the idea of ​​small SSBNs at 4-6 is not bad.

    Of course, you can create an anti-submarine bastion to a depth of 100 km. Expensive, but possible. It’s just the difference where the SSBNs will patrol. At 100 km or at 20. Or even stand at the pier?

    And the idea of ​​small SSBNs for 4-6 missiles is simply utopian. Money must be invested inappropriately in order to achieve the same results as with a single boat.
    Let's get a look. The displacement of such a small boat will certainly be less than that of a "large" boat and the cost of building a hull is probably less. It may even be possible to make such a boat less noisy. What next? If there are 4 missiles on the boat, at least in order to create the equivalent of a modern SSBN with 16 missiles, it will be necessary to build FOUR boats. Instead of 1-2 reactors, 4-8 reactors. Sets of machines and mechanisms will also need four times more. Sense of such an idea? Well, when, as in the START-3 treaty, there are no restrictions on the number of boats. And if the treaty has a provision like in the OSV-1 treaty, which determined the maximum number of missile boats and the maximum number of missiles in the marine component?
    1. Robertocalos 2 January 2020 19: 53 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Utopia, of course. There is no need to reinvent the wheel - small boats, ultra-small. The asymmetric answer will decide whether to physically protect your boats so that you don’t get close to them.
    2. 3danimal 3 January 2020 06: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      At the pier, these submarines are easy targets for a disarming strike. What is it like losing 2-3 right away?
  • Old26 2 January 2020 19: 43 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Quote: evgen1221
    We lay on the ground Poseidon in peacetime, secretly. (With self-destruction from the curious). We change as necessary, they lie unresponsive and when necessary they will sail where it should be.

    And will you also secretly do nuclear charge regulations? Or do you think the enemy is a complete sucker? Poseidon plans to deploy a total of 32 pieces. Who will you change for ???
  • bars1 3 January 2020 00: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Old26
    It’s just the difference where the SSBNs will patrol. At 100 km or at 20. Or even stand at the pier?

    “Standing at the pier” is what you propose. And 100 is 5 times more than 20 km from the coast and the patrol area accordingly increases several times. Let SSBNs graze off the coast. Here you can ensure their reliable protection from all enemy anti-aircraft defense assets.
    By the way, as a rule, it’s cheap to do nothing worthwhile.
    1. 3danimal 3 January 2020 06: 25 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The rogue position (with hope for super-efficiency) is flawed, I agree.
  • lifelong couch potato 3 January 2020 01: 26 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    The first and main problem: to cut the Gordian knot, when the robbery of the people and all natural resources continues cynically. The tsar on a throne of many years will not offend all his pack of officials, oligarchs, military and all kinds of special services working for them. You can simply make all these parasites give to the treasury stolen from the people. Education is falling deliberately at all levels, problems in social programs, medicine, etc. Russians are dying out - worse than cockroaches. The number of officials should be reduced at least 10 times - the effect will be positive. There are still pest traitors at all levels. And the people are silent and chewing snot: it’s calmer.
    A bitter joke, but for decades they could not create their cars (trucks and cars) without the participation of foreigners. And such examples - a lot!
    The second is a military problem. Even officially in the open press it was said that almost all submarines - both missile, and hunters, and special ones - graze (at least) the American submarine fleet. Each missile carrier is followed by two American submarines, which are waiting for the missile carriers at the stage of leaving the base. There are not enough normal ships, planes, helicopters and boats to drive off the adversary or provide a 100% secretive exit. If in the north there is still some chance, then in Kamchatka an incoming-outgoing boat is in full view! Only a surface position plus ebbs and flows: you can see with your own eyes. In the north, the Americans are racing with might and main under the ice even in groups: they are preparing for war and under the ice ... Moral: at the time of X or igrek, the tank lives up to 15 minutes, and how many missile carriers will reach and have time to launch at least two rockets each? I don’t want to speak for the rest of the fleet (and the army): look at the first problem.
    I agree that all swans and bears will fly down and wool very quickly. It is necessary to develop mobile and stationary complexes, and not let the last pennies into underwater retardation.
  • ALEXEY DUSHMAN 3 January 2020 08: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    ... "Russian Project 667BDRM" Dolphin "SSBN and 941" Shark "at the pier. With one special charge, the enemy can destroy about 250-300 nuclear warheads, that is, about 1/6 of the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal ..." -T .е ,, "Andrei Mitrofanov", "we will be pecking by ourselves" ?! Congratulations! I will give you my ticket to a psycho .... It’s not fate, to know, to heal ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Usher 3 January 2020 10: 54 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Quote: Robertocalos
    And Poseidon looks at you and drops a torpedo)

    A rocket is faster than an airplane, and even more so torpedoes, WHAT WRITE FOR ETERNALY? Why ask, ask how to launch a rocket when you know the answer? What stupid questions? If the submarine needs to emerge, Poseidon is not Poseidon even though NEPTUNE is there, but for this, air defense is needed. To bring down.
    1. Robertocalos 3 January 2020 13: 22 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Poseidon from one Arrow will beat off jokingly, but the sub-floating boat will receive a torpedo in a couple of minutes and will not have time to utter a peep, because it is visible in the palm of your hand and is limited in maneuver.
      1. Usher 5 January 2020 15: 27 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        And where is the arrow? This is not about Strela at all. And about a full-fledged air defense system.
  • mik193 3 January 2020 12: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, there’s a mistake with the photo. On the photo is TRK SN "TK-17" project 941 and RPK SN "K-193" 667BD of the project. Deer Lip, beginning of the 90s, I don’t remember exactly.
  • Old26 3 January 2020 13: 45 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: bars1
    Quote: Old26
    It’s just the difference where the SSBNs will patrol. At 100 km or at 20. Or even stand at the pier?

    ,, Stand at the pier "- this is what you suggest.

    Do you offer them to go to the ocean with such a ratio of our missile cruisers and their hunting boats? At least they have time to shoot back in case of something ...

    Quote: bars1
    Quote: Old26
    It’s just the difference where the SSBNs will patrol. At 100 km or at 20. Or even stand at the pier?
    And 100 is 5 times more than 20 km from the coast, and accordingly the patrol area increases several times.

    You just opened my eyes to me, saying that 100 is 5 times more than 20 km. Even, the area will increase several times. Even more. But at 20 km - this is in the zone of its territorial waters, and 100 km - alas ... You can at least create some kind of counterbalance to the adversary in the cords, but now we can do little outside.

    Quote: 3danimal
    At the pier, these submarines are easy targets for a disarming strike. What is it like losing 2-3 right away?

    The concept of a disarming strike is very relative. The global conflict will not begin immediately, there will be a threatened period. Of course, if nothing is done, then the launch of enemy missiles will be "unexpected." If, at least, those actions are taken that are laid down in the charters and instructions, then it is quite possible to achieve on SSBNs and "minute readiness" for launch. And a minute - it will be. On the SF base the nuclear submarine is "inside" the peninsula, 3 dozen km from the exit to the Kola Bay. Plus tervodes, which in such conditions will be patrolled. Even if the OVR forces cannot destroy the enemy’s boat (s), until they can fix the launch of the Tomahawks. And then everything is in the hands of air defense ...
    If ICBM / SLBMs are hit at such bases, then time is even longer, minutes, or even tens
  • Pavel57 3 January 2020 14: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Nobody will clearly tell us the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces. It cannot be fully maintained. Not full - in fact, it becomes a scarecrow. The military will not give up on it, and the consequences of such a step for industry are not entirely obvious. So what seems to be the optimum - to minimize, so that the Bulo.
    1. agond 3 January 2020 15: 45 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Reducing the size of our submarines is the only way to even the odds, and there is no alternative here, as well as some insurmountable technological difficulties. the time of large ships has passed, and the boat should be a boat from the word small. If the project 941 "Shark" is proportionally reduced by three times, then we get a displacement of less than 2000 tons (instead of 48000 tons) and a length of 50 m, and only one rocket horizontally at least twenty meters long and launch forward along the course like a torpedo between the bodies. Now let’s calculate in Shark one missile accounted for 2400 tons of displacement, and here one for 1900 - 2000 tons, there is a difference ... There is no need to put a reactor on such a mini-missile carrier, since it could well hide under the ice in the shallow part of our northern seas and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, and even go downstream of large rivers and with the reactor could run off the coast of the “partner”,
  • Old26 3 January 2020 15: 23 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Pavel57
    Nobody will clearly tell us the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces. It cannot be fully maintained. Not full - in fact, it becomes a scarecrow. The military will not give up on it, and the consequences of such a step for industry are not entirely obvious. So what seems to be the optimum - to minimize, so that the Bulo.

    The fact that the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces is needed is, in principle, no questions. Of course you need. You can’t put all the eggs in one basket. The question now is that, due to the circumstances, we cannot ensure the full-fledged operation of this component. But she is needed. Moreover, in principle now we have about 50% warheads on the offshore component
    1. Pavel57 3 January 2020 19: 08 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      If I (C) would be the director (president), I asked a question, but what does the marine component really give us? Or otherwise - the cost / effectiveness of each of the components, where by efficiency we mean the resistance to various kinds of counteraction of probable opponents.
  • Narak-zempo 3 January 2020 17: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Here explain to the amateur such a thing.
    Under construction, say, the Nord Stream. Why not develop and drown several containers with missiles carrying out autonomous launch next to the pipe. The signal can be fed through the cable laid along the pipe.
    If someone snoops around with drones to inspect the pipeline route, intercept them with their drones and yell to the whole world about an attempt to sabotage.
    1. Pavel57 3 January 2020 20: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Narak-zempo, here you have discovered the main secret of the Nord Stream.
  • lopvlad 4 January 2020 00: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I was always struck by clever people who are here this nonsense below
    SSBN can be tracked by the enemy throughout the route. If the enemy decides on a sudden disarming strike, all SSBNs will be destroyed, and information on this can be obtained with a significant delay.

    trying to cover up "abstraction" of abstruse technical information.

    Even a surface aircraft carrier in the middle of the oceans like a needle in a haystack and he was going to track each SSBN along the entire route of its sailing.
    1. agond 4 January 2020 10: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: lopvlad
      SSBN track

      SSBNs are actually too large, and if it’s still difficult to track them somewhere today, tomorrow it will be definitely simpler, for a long time it was necessary to reduce the size. In general, you should think about changing the doctrine of underwater ballistic weapons as a whole, if containers with missiles are hidden at the bottom of the oceans at a depth of 3 km, then SSBNs are not needed in principle, but a mini-boat relay is needed to transmit the launch command to the container. The boat relay can have minimal armament or be completely without weapons and even without a crew.
      1. lopvlad 6 January 2020 22: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: agond
        if it’s still difficult to track them somewhere today, tomorrow it will be definitely easier


        the underwater environment at the moment is the only one that is not visible by satellites and how many times the echolocation (determination) of an underwater object even under a hundred kilometers is not fantastic, while the airspace of an SPRN station of thirty years ago was viewed for thousands of kilometers.

        Quote: agond
        if containers with missiles are hidden at the bottom of the oceans at a depth of 3 km, then SSBNs are not needed in principle, but a mini-boat relay is needed to transmit the launch command to the container


        all naval bases under the vigilant control of dozens of satellites around the clock and this "trick" will be instantly known to the enemy from the moment of loading such missiles to the place where you hid them, on all American military maps in a flash there will appear an ala cross "cracked rocket." the fact that the oceans is a passage yard, that is, neutral waters, whatever lies there at the bottom, any country in the world can pick it up and take it for study. The USA will stupidly pick up our "stash for the apocalypse" and take it for study.
        And your “mini boat repeater for sending the launch command to the container” will have the role of a float for anyone who wants to find a container with missiles.
  • Nick 4 January 2020 11: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Although the author operates with extensive information, he submits it very tendentiously. The main thing that the author misses is that our SSBNs can get a potential adversary, even while being at the pier wall, or in the waters of our territorial waters. Where not a single enemy will get their vessel.
    1. agond 4 January 2020 13: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Nick
      the author allows this, that our SSBNs can get hold of a potential adversary even when they are at the pier’s wall,

      If from the pier, then why build a SSBN, you could do with an ordinary barge
      1. Nick 4 January 2020 13: 32 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: agond
        Quote: Nick
        the author allows this, that our SSBNs can get hold of a potential adversary even when they are at the pier’s wall,

        If from the pier, then why build a SSBN, you could do with an ordinary barge

        I explain that, unlike a barge, a nuclear submarine can increase its stealth, and therefore invulnerability, hiding and moving under water. But if necessary, for example, when changing the crew, he can get the enemy from the pier.
        1. mik193 4 January 2020 19: 27 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The combat duty at the base was practiced in the 90s, when the ship could not go to sea due to malfunctions or with an incomplete crew on board.
        2. VALENTIN-37 13 January 2020 16: 09 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          can increase your stealth
          Stealth is 1.
          Her absence0.
          Somehow does not fit with you.
          Half the boat is visible and half not? With a stealth of 0,5? belay
          1. Nick 13 January 2020 18: 07 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: VALENTIN-37
            can increase your stealth
            Stealth is 1.
            Her absence0.
            Somehow does not fit with you.
            Half the boat is visible and half not? With a stealth of 0,5? belay

            It does not fit in your head. Binary code fails. The degree of stealth is different. Even under water, the boat does not have stealth equal to unity, but in the underwater position it is a priori more difficult to detect.
            1. VALENTIN-37 13 January 2020 18: 26 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Well, of course. I considered probabilities for many years both for search and for tracking.
              Tell the navigator about stealth. laughing
              What is the binary code in the 80s on the Be-12?
              Remember well, secrecy is a TACTICAL concept. She is either there or she is not.
              1. Nick 13 January 2020 18: 30 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: VALENTIN-37
                remember well, secrecy is a TACTICAL concept. She is either there or she is not.

                Then you have a problem with the definitions.
                1. VALENTIN-37 16 January 2020 11: 07 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Why me? So in the textbook. There is a tactical concept, but there is a mathematical one.
  • Old26 4 January 2020 20: 49 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Narak-zempo
    Here explain to the amateur such a thing.
    Under construction, say, the Nord Stream. Why not develop and drown several containers with missiles carrying out autonomous launch next to the pipe. The signal can be fed through the cable laid along the pipe.
    If someone snoops around with drones to inspect the pipeline route, intercept them with their drones and yell to the whole world about an attempt to sabotage.

    And the fact that this pipe is not only ours you take into account? Are you sure that the same FRG will give permission to place drones somewhere on the pipe? And how do you imagine a drone detection system? Will they be the size of a nuclear submarine or an aircraft carrier? In addition, the pipe is in neutral waters for the most part. On what basis can a drone be intercepted if it does not threaten the pipe?
    You can drown missiles. And you know that the placement of rockets in containers at the bottom is prohibited. And that the answer can be much more dangerous for us ...

    Quote: agond
    Quote: lopvlad
    SSBN track

    SSBNs are actually too large, and if it’s still difficult to track them somewhere today, tomorrow it will be definitely simpler, for a long time it was necessary to reduce the size. In general, you should think about changing the doctrine of underwater ballistic weapons as a whole, if containers with missiles are hidden at the bottom of the oceans at a depth of 3 km, then SSBNs are not needed in principle, but a mini-boat relay is needed to transmit the launch command to the container. The boat relay can have minimal armament or be completely without weapons and even without a crew.

    If the missiles are "hidden" at the bottom of the oceans, then it is necessary to "break" all existing and previously concluded strategic agreements. And taking into account the fact that our opponent has a much more powerful economy, we can expect an answer when our opponent places 10 or 20 on one container placed by us. Moreover, they can place such containers near the territory of Russia, and we are only not far from our own territory.
    In addition, a container at a depth of 3 km - this container should be the size of a submarine, because what ballast tanks are needed to lift this container with a rocket from a depth of 3 km to the depth from which the launch is made. Plus, you will regularly have to lift these containers to the surface, tow them to the base, where they will carry out routine maintenance with warheads. In short, the idea of ​​"stillborn"
    1. agond 4 January 2020 22: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      then we can expect a response when our opponent places 10 or 20 on one container we have placed.

      They don’t need underwater containers, they have everything fine with the submarine
      Quote: Old26
      the container should be the size of a submarine, for what ballast tanks are needed to lift this container with a rocket from a depth of 3 km to a depth

      1 The container should not emerge from the purge of tanks, you can just dump the load of the ballast.
      2 The container can be very small, for example, in the form of a pipe with a diameter of less than 1.5 m and a length of about 15 m, the wall thickness is 20 mm, which is sufficient for a depth of 3 km, because the Mir apparatus (which is immersed for 6 km) has a wall thickness of 40 mm
      3 Ideal, a self-propelled container capable of surfacing due to movement, if necessary, it could change its location, and independently get to the duty station and return back, if not to the base, then at least to the surface ship.
    2. VALENTIN-37 13 January 2020 16: 12 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      then we can expect an answer
      The answer is simple. Stop buying hydrocarbons and sell your products. AT ALL.
      Apart from the arrests of assets and real estate of the Russian leadership abroad.
      Someone will be torn into shreds, right in Sochi.
  • Old26 5 January 2020 13: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: agond
    They don’t need underwater containers, they have everything fine with the submarine

    No need until we have such containers. Violation of this article of the treaty by Russia will entail the creation of such containers by the enemy. Moreover, given the fact that the territories of their allies are located close to our territory, they can easily deploy such containers near our territory (a huge minus for our missile defense systems) and in much larger quantities

    Quote: agond
    1 The container should not emerge from the purge of tanks, you can just dump the load of the ballast.

    Perfectly. How much will the ballast (the same fraction) occupy when the launch weight of the rocket is 40 tons plus the container body? Where will that volume of liquid be located, providing zero buoyancy of a container? I no longer ask the question of how regularly it will be necessary to reset the ballast during routine maintenance with warheads and refill this device with ballast ....

    Quote: agond
    2 The container can be very small, for example, in the form of a pipe with a diameter of less than 1.5 m and a length of about 15 m, the wall thickness is 20 mm, which is sufficient for a depth of 3 km, because the Mir apparatus (which is immersed for 6 km) has a wall thickness of 40 mm

    And what missiles do you plan to put in such a container? Is she like that? the dimensions that such a rocket will have, and accordingly the firing range and the weight to be thrown. It is physically impossible to make a small container, since the rocket itself, the instruments and equipment of the missile guidance system should be located in it. Instruments and equipment providing TVR missiles for several years. A place for ballast, a place for containers with the same gas, since you don’t want to have ballast for the purge tanks

    Quote: agond
    3 Ideal, a self-propelled container capable of surfacing due to movement, if necessary, it could change its location, and independently get to the duty station and return back, if not to the base, then at least to the surface ship.

    We already passed it on products of 602 projects. "Stillborn" option. It turns out that it’s not the container from which you started your version, but a full-fledged underwater vehicle with a fairly powerful engine
    1. agond 5 January 2020 22: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      entail the creation of such containers and the enemy.

      They don’t and will not need such a thing, they can put whatever they want anywhere in Europe, it’s easier for them to do this, we just have to invent it, and then we are surrounded by a shallow shelf under ice in the north, and a shallow Baltic in the west, and Far East, what's the point

      Quote: Old26
      Perfectly. How much will the ballast (the same fraction) occupy when the launch weight of the rocket is 40 tons plus the container body?

      If the self-propelled container with buoyancy close to zero (obtained during assembly at the factory) with dimensions of 1.5 m in diameter and 15 m long with a displacement of 26 tons by a wall of 20 mm, the weight of the container is about 12 tons inside the X-101 cruise missile, weighing 2400 kg, the remaining 11 tons will go to batteries and other equipment, and if not self-propelled, then with a diameter of 1 m and a length of 10 m with a displacement of 8 tons. If a wall of 20 mm weighs about 5 tons, this can be lowered by 3 km. and it’s not a bathyscaphe with any gasoline tanks, they dumped a load of 500 kg and the container will pop up safely to launch the rocket or pick it up on the ship, and the missile guidance systems should be at the rocket itself, why do they need the container.
      The source of energy for the operation of the devices in standby mode, probably it should be radioisotope, which would be enough for the whole time (the main battery should be constantly recharged from it), and the rocket itself under such stable storage conditions can remain operational for a long time.



      .
  • Old26 6 January 2020 13: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: agond
    They don’t and will not need such a thing, they can put whatever they want anywhere in Europe, it’s easier for them to do this, we just have to invent it, and then we are surrounded by a shallow shelf under ice in the north, and a shallow Baltic in the west, and Far East, what's the point

    Do not promise. Violation of these articles of the contract will entail the creation of similar systems in the United States. One must be very stupid not to take this opportunity. Place the same containers on the east coast of Japan (we will not be able to control their placement, retrieval and similar operations) - and at a distance of 500 km from the Russian border we can “fuck” a dozen or two containers with intercontinental ballistic missiles or, in extreme cases, with medium-range missiles. And the reaction time to such weapons will be minimal.
    it can be easier and cheaper to place missiles on land, but we will know about the approximate area of ​​deployment. The container will be unknown where. And this is dangerous. Therefore, there was an article on the prohibition of such systems.

    Quote: agond
    If the self-propelled container with buoyancy close to zero (obtained during assembly at the factory) with dimensions of 1.5 m in diameter and 15 m long with a displacement of 26 tons by a wall of 20 mm, the weight of the container is about 12 tons inside the X-101 cruise missile, weighing 2400 kg, the remaining 11 tons will go to batteries and other equipment, and if not self-propelled, then with a diameter of 1 m and a length of 10 m with a displacement of 8 tons. If a wall of 20 mm weighs about 5 tons, this can be lowered by 3 km. and it’s not a bathyscaphe with any gasoline tanks, they dumped a load of 500 kg and the container will pop up safely to launch the rocket or pick it up on the ship, and the missile guidance systems should be at the rocket itself, why do they need the container.
    The source of energy for the operation of the devices in standby mode, probably it should be radioisotope, which would be enough for the whole time (the main battery should be constantly recharged from it), and the rocket itself under such stable storage conditions can remain operational for a long time.

    Sense to place cruise missiles in such containers? The naval component of the strategic nuclear forces is BALLISTIC missiles, and by no means cruise missiles. In addition, I did not hear that there was a ground version of the X-101. For this to exist, a change in the mass and dimensions of cruise missiles will be needed (add starter)
    1. agond 6 January 2020 18: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      and at a distance of 500 km from the Russian border we can "fuck" a dozen or two containers with intercontinental ballistic missiles or, in extreme cases, with medium-range missiles

      North Korea, China and many others can decompose such containers in their territorial waters. You must admit that it’s easier and more reliable than building submarines, and so lies a container at the bottom of the 12-mile zone, a cable to it, a shore house on the other end of the cable, there is a button in the house, the length of the coast is large it is impossible to trace in principle, and what is especially valuable, the sea does not freeze there. For coastal shallow water, containers will be very simple and cheap, and they will surpass any mine in terms of security, because no one will even know where it is hidden, this is not a whole new direction of weapons, it’s just not suitable for us, the coast is covered with ice for six months.
  • Old26 6 January 2020 19: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: agond
    Quote: Old26
    and at a distance of 500 km from the Russian border we can "fuck" a dozen or two containers with intercontinental ballistic missiles or, in extreme cases, with medium-range missiles

    North Korea, China and many others can decompose such containers in their territorial waters. You must admit that it’s easier and more reliable than building submarines, and so lies a container at the bottom of the 12-mile zone, a cable to it, a shore house on the other end of the cable, there is a button in the house, the length of the coast is large it is impossible to trace in principle, and what is especially valuable, the sea does not freeze there. For coastal shallow water, containers will be very simple and cheap, and they will surpass any mine in terms of security, because no one will even know where it is hidden, this is not a whole new direction of weapons, it’s just not suitable for us, the coast is covered with ice for six months.

    And what will be the effect, place such containers North Koreans or Chinese? Do they have proven missiles capable of reaching US territory? And what is the point of such containers. There will be maximum time for intercepting missiles from such containers; shoot them with intercontinental missiles. Among other things, there is a danger that sabotage actions can be carried out against such containers. But most importantly, you still do not understand. The United States will be able to place such containers much more than Russia and the same China combined. That is why containers are prohibited, as is prohibited the deployment of ballistic missiles on any ships that are not submarines, the placement of such "bases" at the bottom is prohibited (stationary and mobile)
    1. agond 6 January 2020 21: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      But most importantly, you still do not understand. The United States will be able to place such containers much more than Russia and the same China combined.

      Yes they can (hardly with China) but where? in the North Sea, in the Baltic, it’s easier on the shore near the allies, it remains under the ice in the north, but for them this is irrelevant for them ordinary submarines are enough.
      Quote: Old26
      placement of such “bases” at the bottom is prohibited (with

      Which countries have signed the agreement? and it does not apply to territorial waters, this is more than enough for many countries, and then if the bottom mine can be laid on the bottom, near its shore, then why can not the container?. How do I know what is in it?
      And for the placement of weapons as such, in particular in the mines and Topolii with Yars, it is better to keep such things not in the center of the country where a lot of people live, but away in uninhabited places, on Novaya Zemlya, Kamchatka, on islands, underwater the same approach, this is obvious, this applies to any country, and even better to keep the weapon closer to the enemy, at a distance of 500 km from the coast at depths of 2 to 3.5 km, you can even completely buried in the bottom of the reservoir, let the enemy look., will find his. if he can raise it.
      By the way, containers do not always have to be made of high-strength steel like Mir apparatuses, you can even make rubber for a rocket with a conventional explosive. For example, a rubber “bag” filled with suitable liquid, put a specially adapted cruise missile or torpedo in the bag, the liquid will fill all voids in it and no external pressure is scary, at least 6 km.
  • Old26 7 January 2020 12: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: agond
    Yes they can (hardly with China) but where? in the North Sea, in the Baltic, it’s easier on the shore near the allies, it remains under the ice in the north, but for them this is irrelevant for them ordinary submarines are enough.

    Yes, anywhere, if we go to replace the boats with containers. The Black Sea coast is enough to accommodate, if not hundreds, then dozens of such containers, and beyond the territorial waters of NATO countries (if they suddenly "buzz" and are against it). Baltic Sea of ​​Japan. There are enough places against us ...
    Of course, it is easier to place it on the shore, but at the same time the PPD of such complexes will be known. But where exactly the containers will be is unknown. Therefore, we are not trying to use this option, since it is not profitable for us. In this case, we will lose.

    Quote: agond
    Which countries have signed the agreement? and it does not apply to territorial waters, this is more than enough for many countries, and then if the bottom mine can be laid on the bottom, near its shore, then why can not the container?. How do I know what is in it?

    Two countries that are capable of doing this are signed - the USSR and the USA (EMNIP Articles 9.1a and 9.1b) of the SALT-2 agreement.
    It was possible to place rockets with containers in the cords. But at the same time there was a restriction that negates the deployment of all these missiles on any means that are not submarines. This launch range is not more than 600 km. Such BRs could be placed in containers, and on barges on their own rivers, and on ships of the civilian fleet. Only here is the point of having such missiles with a range of up to 600 km, when they were included in the offset
    You can place a ground mine anywhere. Though in your own pool. How to find out what is in the container? Well, you should not consider your opponent so stupid. Such a container is a complex engineering structure. This is not a barrel to dump overboard or a concrete block. Positioning should be very high. In addition, these containers must regularly rise to the surface for routine maintenance. so there will be a lot of unmasking signs. In addition, the enemy can always try to conduct at least a check on what’s at the bottom. There are ways.

    Quote: agond
    And for the placement of weapons as such, in particular in the mines and Topolii with Yars, it is better to keep such things not in the center of the country where a lot of people live, but away in uninhabited places, on Novaya Zemlya, Kamchatka, on islands, underwater the same approach, this is obvious, this applies to any country, and even better to keep the weapon closer to the enemy, at a distance of 500 km from the coast at depths of 2 to 3.5 km, you can even completely buried in the bottom of the reservoir, let the enemy look., will find his. if he can raise it.

    And by the way it turns out that it is in the center of the country that the population of the country is smaller than in the periphery, where you propose keeping them. In addition, the deployment of such weapons on the same New Earth or Kamchatka will increase the likelihood of the destruction of these weapons before they can shoot. That is, in fact, you offer strategic systems to place "for slaughter." For the defeat of such complexes on Novaya Zemlya or Kamchatka can occur before the team to use them passes ...
    We have already discussed with you about placement under water. In any case, accommodation in these places (Novaya Zemlya, Kamchatka, Chukotka, under water) will be more costly financially, and sometimes in terms of combat readiness, than where they are now
    We simply will not succeed in placing closer to the enemy due to both political and technical capabilities. We have no countries near the USA, within this range, where we could place something like that. Buried in the bottom of ponds - this is of course spectacular, but find there such ponds. At depths of 2-3,5 km - in fact it is not just a container, but a complex structure for one or more missiles. Comparable in complexity to a conventional submarine, it may be more complicated, but without the advantages of a submarine

    Quote: agond
    By the way, containers do not always have to be made of high-strength steel like Mir apparatuses, you can even make rubber for a rocket with a conventional explosive. For example, a rubber “bag” filled with suitable liquid, put a specially adapted cruise missile or torpedo in the bag, the liquid will fill all voids in it and no external pressure is scary, at least 6 km.

    Well, questions of fairy tales are not on this resource. There is no "Fiction" section in VO.
    1. agond 7 January 2020 19: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What is all pessimistic, wherever you throw it or it’s impossible, or expensive, or impossible, although it’s rather impossible to detect, hidden at the bottom, and at depths of 2 km or much less depth, but “buried” in the bottom of the reservoir, this task is beyond humans by definition, a contract can and should be rethought. By the way, how are things with the Skif missile system, because it seemed to go beyond the scope of the treaty?
      1. agond 9 January 2020 18: 45 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Old26
        Placing closer to the enemy, we simply will not work in force

        In order for everything to work out, one should less often make mistakes in the plan, in the goal setting, in the statement of the problem. If we abandoned the dogma - the vertical way of placing missiles on SSBNs, then we would not have to build the giants we have and at the same time we continue to naively think that they will not be discovered right away. We look at Shark projects 941 48 thousand tons displacement !!! .. later smaller than 955 and 955A, but the same is a lot of 24 thousand tons, is it really impossible to just build small submarines with one single, but large missile with horizontal placement and launch forward. A triple-reduced 941 project is ideal for this, if a self-propelled container is placed between strong hulls, then it will be possible to graze unnoticed off the coast of the adversary, and a twice-reduced design will allow one Sarmat-type missile to fit in the same way. In general, naval sailors have a strange craving for large ships, give them at least 160 m and everyone here, even though the destroyer is at least unimportant, they forgot how they mastered the oceans on 40 meter sailing vessels. Here they built Belgorod as much as 0.184km long !!! and he will be in private all until they write off.
  • VALENTIN-37 16 January 2020 15: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Now I read- "Russian strategic submarine missile carriers will be protected by new armored vehicles. The coastal forces of the Pacific Fleet, covering submarines in Kamchatka, have received the most modern infantry fighting vehicles ........ According to experts, the new vehicles will become a reliable shield against saboteurs and sea landing ... "
    In fact, Vilyuchinsk is a peninsula. There leads ONE road.
    In winter and on a snowmobile you will not pass everywhere, and in summer only with legs. What are BMP? Who writes such nonsense?
    Two ancient IPCs remained at TWO strategists.

  • Maj
    Maj 19 January 2020 14: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The sunset of the nuclear triad?

    A nuclear triad is something from the past.
    Strategic bombers are now generally incompetent against a serious adversary. Any.
    As the surface component of the Navy. Destroy at the moment.
    The underwater component of the Navy also has problems. But they are already much smaller. Therefore, this component, with some reservations, can be considered competent.
    The land part of the strategic nuclear forces is also capable. Also not without problems, but capable.