The United States began to arm submarines with low-power nuclear missiles

The United States launched the first submarine on board, carrying Trident ballistic missiles, equipped with nuclear warheads with reduced charge power. This is stated in a statement published on Wednesday by the Federation of American Scientists (FAA).

The U.S. Navy has now deployed a new type of [upgraded] W76-2 low-power warhead on a Trident ballistic missile submarine

- said the director of information projects related to the nuclear sphere at the FAA Hans Christensen.

According to Christensen, in the last weeks of December last year, the Ohio class Tennessee strategic submarine with one or two new warheads went on combat alert. In addition, in the Pacific Ocean, a second submarine also carries out patrolling, on board of which there are new-type warheads.

The United States announced the start of production of new nuclear warheads W76-2 with reduced charge power in early 2019. Unlike the W76-1 warhead, which has a capacity of 100 kilotons, the power of the W76-2 is “only” 5-6 kilotons.

The Trump administration claimed that a low-power warhead is needed to deter Russia. Moscow, in Washington’s opinion, may find that the US will not want to use its current nuclear weapon in case of confrontation with the Russian Federation, as the current nuclear weapons have too much power.

The decision to adopt a nuclear warhead with a smaller explosion power than was used against Hiroshima caused a mixed reaction in Washington. According to some experts, the enemy still does not know that a missile with a low-powered nuclear warhead has been fired against him and will send its own, but more powerful, response.

Trident is a family of three-stage American solid-propellant ballistic missiles deployed on submarines. The missile can carry up to 14 warheads W76 (100 kt) or up to 8 W88 (475 kt), which are also being upgraded.

Comments

[Sergey39]

Low-power nuclear warheads, skim milk, diet Coca-Cola, rubber woman. Do they really not understand that we will answer in full.

[svp67]

Quote: Sergey39

Do they really not understand that we will answer in full.

Of course they understand. And you need to understand this news so that if the power is lowered, then the accuracy of the hit of this warhead has been increased. Accordingly, their blow will not be weak ...

[Svetlana]

The accuracy of a nuclear strike, as I understand it, does not play a big role. Plus - Minus 200 meta is on the drum. But here is the amount of charges made from say 1000 kg. raw materials perhaps matters.

[svp67]

Quote: Svetlana

Plus - Minus 200 meta is on the drum.

This is at high power, and at low power, accuracy is very necessary.

[Svetlana]

Yes. But the very need to improve accuracy is a consequence of lowering the charge, and not vice versa

[Hunter 2]

Here's how to say, compare warheads of 5 and 100 ct - We need to try very hard. Strategic nuclear weapons are not intended for the destruction of small targets, they hit the areas. What the United States wanted to achieve with this is not clear. We have these tasks performed by tactical nuclear weapons. Which the Mattresses practically do not have. And represented mainly in the form of free-falling B61 ​​BXNUMX. And a small number of cruise missile warheads.

[maxim947]

Moscow, in Washington’s opinion, may believe that the United States will not want to use its current nuclear weapons in the event of a confrontation with the Russian Federation, since current nuclear weapons have too much power.

As usual, they talk beautifully, the humanists suck. Just problems with the number of nuclear charges, that's the whole point of this "modernization".

[hydrox]

They don’t bullshit :: these kids just have a hysteria - they only have two pots of weapons-grade plutonium in half with tobacco dust, and they CANNOT get clean weapons concentrate, technology is lost :: we have the other way round - and weapons-grade plutonium reserves are growing, and weapons-grade uranium there’s nowhere to go (over there, they began to drive fuel with MOX fuel (the first assemblies were loaded into the BN-800, while 10% of the total mass).

[Lexus]

What the United States wanted to achieve with this is not clear

Minimize collateral damage and radiation contamination. In other words, the Americans are confident that no one from the current "rowers" will give the order to use nuclear weapons in Russia, and that the people do not wake up, the silos must be quickly destroyed, for this they just need the equivalent of several tons of explosives on the "cover." TNT is thus expensive to deliver. And we can continue to calmly continue to export resources, because with the army that we have now, without nuclear weapons, we will never fight back.
Those. "tandem" suits them in everything - the country is degrading, "good" is being sold. But "the clouds are going gloomily", what if the Soviet Union will revive? Then the "Auction of Unheard-of Bounty" will undoubtedly end. And the two strong opponents, the USSR and the PRC, confront the West with "the navel will be untied."

[LiSiCyn]

With minor changes, I agree with your opinion.

[for]

Quote: Hunter 2

Which the Mattresses practically do not have.

As I look at yours, they have nothing to do, then why arm ourselves with haste.

[hydrox]

Yes, we are not arming, but rearming: in order to pound the decision centers, it is not at all necessary to vitrify the surface in kilometers ... yes, they can take more small YRS with Sarmatian.

[eklmn]

“As I look at yours, they have nothing to do, why are we arming ourselves with haste.”
And this is a response to Putin's words of 2018 about the doctrine of Russia to use tactical nuclear bombs in a conventional war.
Putin's “nuclear” statement: doctrine change or information war? ”
https://inosmi.ru/politic/20181023/243517856.html
“The greatest concern is not even the improvement of strategic systems that are designed for the most extreme cases, but Russian tactical nuclear arsenal. In this regard, the Russian military doctrine, especially its secret part, is not at all so straightforward. It provides for the application of the “de-escalation” method, then there is a limited nuclear strike in the event of a development of conventional conflict unfavorable for Moscow. According to the idea, such a step will demonstrate the Kremlin’s resolve and will not allow the war to reach a strategic level when the existence of the Russian state is jeopardized. So, regardless of Putin’s statements, delivering a “preventive” tactical strike remains for Russia one of the steps that it can take. ”

[Svetlana]

>>>> What the United States wanted to achieve by this is not clear. <<
Well .. one of the tasks, it seems to me, is to lower the decision threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. It is one thing for the commander to decide to bomb the demolishing bombing bomb, another half a city.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Hunter 2

Here's how to say, compare warheads of 5 and 100 ct - We need to try very hard. Strategic nuclear weapons are not intended for the destruction of small targets, they hit the areas. What the United States wanted to achieve with this is not clear. We have these tasks performed by tactical nuclear weapons. Which the Mattresses practically do not have. And represented mainly in the form of free-falling B61 ​​BXNUMX. And a small number of cruise missile warheads.

Accuracy is critically important for killing shpu, well, or you can score and bargain with megaton class

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Svetlana

Yes. But the very need to improve accuracy is a consequence of lowering the charge, and not vice versa

Yes. okay?

Why then did super-precise Pershing 35-45 years ago?
Although there were no problems with power charges then?

[hydrox]

At that time, positioning systems did not fly in space, and soon there are already a dozen of them there ...

[Ezekiel 25-17]

Quote: Svetlana

The accuracy of a nuclear strike, as I understand it, does not play a big role. Plus - Minus 200 meta is on the drum. But here is the amount of charges made from say 1000 kg. raw materials perhaps matters.

It's not just about raw materials: in any case, the cost will be no less than that of a standard warhead.

[hydrox]

And even if you don't care about our cost: this is not a conveyor belt, products are piece, the cost is determined by the need, and the need is small, but these will be real charges, not American "pops".
On the other hand, inducing a 5-kT YaBG is much easier than a 200-kT YaBG and here you are right: the equipment for guiding light YaBG will be cheaper than it is for heavy.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: hydrox

On the other hand, inducing a 5-kT YaBG is much easier than a 200-kT YaBG and here you are right: the equipment for guiding light YaBG will be cheaper than it is for heavy.

The mass will be almost the same, no difference

[hydrox]

If we are talking about maneuvering heads, the difference will be one and a half times, and if network-centric equipment is also hung, then two ...

[Vol4ara]

Quote: hydrox

If we are talking about maneuvering heads, the difference will be one and a half times, and if network-centric equipment is also hung, then two ...

In general, there will be no difference, the mass of a plutonium ball of critical mass of 11 kg, the mass of the carrier is 59 tons

[knn54]

The main task is to hit the mines so that there is no "response". Therefore, KVO plays an important role.
Well, reduced power. Apparently, for Iran, the DPRK.

[svp67]

Quote: knn54

The main task is to hit the mines so that there is no "response".

Rather, control points, nodes and communication lines ... For this, as well as for hitting important strategic, infrastructure facilities, accuracy is very important

[1959ain]

Quote: svp67

Of course they understand. And you need to understand this news so that if the power is lowered, then the accuracy of the hit of this warhead has been increased. Accordingly, their blow will not be weak ...

Not the fuel ran out, just go to lull us, they say do not resist when we beat, we will beat you loving and not much. This desire to force us to abandon nuclear weapons

[lucul]

No fuel ran out

That is fuel)))
Weapon Plutonium is then obtained after he visited the nuclear power plant. And the Americans everywhere shut down their nuclear power plants-where did the fuel come from ....

[Ezekiel 25-17]

Quote: svp67

Quote: Sergey39

Do they really not understand that we will answer in full.

Of course they understand. And you need to understand this news so that if the power is lowered, then the accuracy of the hit of this warhead has been increased. Accordingly, their blow will not be weak ...

In order to find out the CVT, full-scale tests are needed, and in the case of low-power traps, especially, the calculations according to the previous system are not valid.

[KCA]

The United States does not have weapons-grade plutonium for the planned restoration of degrading charges, so they simply reduce the mass of plutonium, the charge power decreases, and not at all an increase in accuracy.

[Military77]

Yes Yes. At VO a couple of months ago, the article was. They buy uranium for nuclear power plants from us, and the charge can be used for 20-25 years, after which it will be modernized / disposed of. And it’s not profitable to produce your own, so the shop closed. Capitalism in action.

[KCA]

And in Russia, after prevention and modernization, they launched BN-800 with 18 assemblies of fuel elements with MOX fuel, 180 will be loaded by the end of the year, the process of processing nuclear waste into plutonium has begun

[asv363]

There are about 100 tons of WgPu (Weapon-grade Pu-239, or weapons-grade plutonium-239 in Russian, i.e. at least 94% of the 239th isotope). Otherwise, where did the SOUP come from, which we suspended before the start of the action, exposing the USA to impossible conditions for our return to the agreement?

[KCA]

As I understand it, this is a strategic reserve, and because there’s nothing to replenish it, then they’re not allowed to get into it

[asv363]

Why, then, did the United States sign the MOP, according to which both sides - the United States and the Russian Federation were obliged to utilize 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium for the period from 2018 to 2034? We suspended the agreement in the fall of 2016.

[Military77]

Maybe there is, only these are old reserves, Pu-239 has a "shelf life" of just 20-25 years. After this period, it loses its properties.

[asv363]

Plutonium pits (Americanism, alas, has taken root) are sent for "melting". The mass loss is not so great. In any case, nothing prevents (from a technical point of view) to start its operation again or to separate it from spent nuclear fuel.

[KCA]

From the article https://masterok.livejournal.com/3030452.html, the article is devoted to new reduced YO charges

Gun plutonium - it falls apart. Constantly and unstoppably. The problem of the combat effectiveness of “old” plutonium charges is that over time the concentration of Plutonium 239 decreases. Due to alpha decay (the nuclei of Plutonium-239 "lose" alpha particles, which are the nuclei of the helium atom), an impurity of Uranus 235 is formed instead. Accordingly, the critical mass increases. For pure Plutonium, 239 is 11kg (10cm sphere), for uranium - 47 kg (17cm sphere). Uranium -235 also decays (as in the case of Plutonium-239, also alpha-decay), polluting the plutonium sphere with Thium-231 and Helium. Admixture of 241 plutonium (and it always is, though a fraction of a percent) with a half-life in 14 years, also decays (in this case there is already beta decay - Plutonium-241 "loses" the electron and neutrino), giving Americium 241, which further worsens the critical indicators (Americium-241 breaks up in the alpha version to Neptunium-237 and all same Helium).

When I talked about rust, I was not very joking. Plutonium charges are “aging”. And they, as it were, cannot be “renewed”. Yes, theoretically, you can change the initiator design, melt the old ball 3, fuse the new 2 from them ... Increasing the mass, taking into account the degradation of plutonium. However, “dirty” plutonium is unreliable. Even an enlarged “ball” may not reach a supercritical state during compression during an explosion ... And if, for some statistical whim, a high content of Plutonium-240 (formed from 239 by neutron capture) is formed in the resulting ball - on the contrary, it can blabahnut directly on factory. The critical value is 7% Plutonium-240, the excess of which can lead to an elegantly formulated “problem” - “premature detonation”.
Thus, we conclude that States need new, fresh plutonium initiators to update the B61 fleet. But officially, the multiplier reactors in America were closed back in 1988. There are, of course, still accumulated reserves. In the Russian Federation, 2007 tons of weapons-grade plutonium were accumulated for 170, in the USA - 103 tons. Although these stocks are also “aging”. Plus, I recall an article by NASA that the US has only a couple of RTGs left for Pu-238. The Department of Energy promises NASA 1.5 kg of Pu-238 per year. “New Horizons” has an 220Watt RTG that contains 11 kilograms. “Curiosity” - carries RTG with 4.8 kg. Moreover, there are suggestions that this plutonium has already been purchased in Russia ...

[asv363]

The half-life of plutonium-239 is approximately 24 years. From which it follows that in 000-20 years, about 25% of the isotope should decay. Even if 0,1% of the atoms. With all the costs of the Purex process (plutonium extraction process), we will lose 0,3 percent of plutonium. In the dry residue, we get plutonium almost 3% enrichment for the 90th isotope.

So tell the author of LJ about "rusting plutonium" and 2 BGs out of 3.

[KCA]

There is, however, a problem - 2,2% of the rapidly decaying Pu241 isotope is gradually turning into the americium isotope Am241 - and this is a weakly gamma-emitting nuclide that has a half-life of 433 years (i.e. its concentration continuously increases until the bulk of Pu241 decays ) Am241 begins to spoil elements of the bomb and people walking past the ammunition with its gamma radiation, and it is also a neutron poison. The maximum permissible concentration in Am241 ammunition is from 0,5 to 1%. It is the accumulation of Am241 that determines the “aging” of nuclear weapons. It turns out to be a rather unexpected thing - after 5-8 years, the plutonium core of the bomb made of a material with a high Pu241 content must be removed and sent for re-melting with purification from americium - otherwise the bomb risks not exploding (due to degradation, for example, of gamma- radiation). However, after 3-4 such purifications, Pu241 in such plutonium ends, and further it is not necessary to touch the plutonium. It turns out that the first 28 years of plutonium's life should be regularly remelted and cleaned of americium, but then, with a loss of ~ 2% of the mass, the situation settles down, and plutonium ceases to degrade.
The next degradation mechanism is the effect of plutonium decay radiation on the plutonium core material itself. Plutonium (almost all isotopes) prefers to decay through alpha decay, and the emitted alpha particles damage the material, from which it becomes embrittled due to damage to the lattice, helium accumulates in it, and the metal increases in size (which is called nuclear swelling). It is interesting that such changes in the material positively affect the properties of plutonium, such as nuclear explosives, but, alas, do not add reliability to a specific mechanical product - a nuclear bomb. Therefore, once every 15-30 years, the plutonium core must be annealed or re-melted in order to return to its original properties.
In the United States, radiochemical plutonium facilities were preserved at the Y-12 plant in Oakridge (a document from which it can be understood that the plant continues to be involved in plutonium refining), and since 2007, a line has been established for the re-melting of plutonium nuclei and the manufacture of new ones in LANL. However, the main complex in Hanford, which was involved in both the extraction of plutonium from SNF reactors located right there and the purification, refining, manufacturing of nuclei and storage of plutonium, was closed in 1988 and is currently disassembled

[asv363]

Here! Well written, everything about the case.

[KCA]

This is not me, found on the internet

[Military77]

What does the half-life have to do with it? I wrote about the suitability of Pu-239 for use in the thermonuclear BG W88 and W87 after 20-25 years. And the half-life curve is not linear, if so, but more like an exponent.
In 1988, the Rocky Flats Plant, which manufactured plutonium triggers (small nuclear weapons used to initiate a thermonuclear explosion), known as "plutonium buttons", was closed. As far as I understand, there is no other similar enterprise in the USA

[asv363]

There is a convenient function on the VO site: the up arrow to the right of the date and time of publication of the message. If you press it, you will see that I answered the respected KSA.

[maidan.izrailovich]

... that means they’ve increased the accuracy of this warhead.

Hardly.
Here the point is different. The United States has long nurtured the doctrine of "limited" nuclear war. That is to say for regional conflicts.
Since the world community "swallowed" the use of depleted uranium in Yugoslavia and Iraq, the next move is just the same low-yield nuclear charges.
Potential victims still have time to buy Russian air defense systems.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: svp67

Quote: Sergey39

Do they really not understand that we will answer in full.

Of course they understand. And you need to understand this news so that if the power is lowered, then the accuracy of the hit of this warhead has been increased. Accordingly, their blow will not be weak ...

And the range with the flat, read ultrafast rocket flight paths ... due to the decrease in thrown mass ...

[Vol4ara]

Quote: SovAr238A

Quote: svp67

Quote: Sergey39

Do they really not understand that we will answer in full.

Of course they understand. And you need to understand this news so that if the power is lowered, then the accuracy of the hit of this warhead has been increased. Accordingly, their blow will not be weak ...

And the range with the flat, read ultrafast rocket flight paths ... due to the decrease in thrown mass ...

Reduced casting weight by 30 kg with a carrier weight of 59 tons, oh yes, it is so important

[Svarog]

Quote: Sergey39

Do they really not understand that we will answer in full.

They know that we won’t answer .. yes, they don’t intend to attack themselves .. This is all the show for the Russian citizen .. they say that everything is so bad in Russia because of the USA ... and the bourgeoisie, meanwhile, quietly have rents from our natural resources and buy real estate in the USA ....

[Vasily Ponomarev]

just like the governor of Khabarovsk

[Krasnodar]

This is because they make disarmament strike weapons - at mines, command posts and other protected objects.

[asv363]

Albert, the covers of the ICBM mines were made during the USSR, i.e. on conscience. They are designed to withstand 2 explosions of 100 ktn, at a minimum.

[Krasnodar]

They can embed nearby, with a depression of 50 m
This is what it is designed for.

[asv363]

The rocket in the mine is hung out, i.e. There is no direct contact with the walls. Krasnodar can sleep peacefully.

[Krasnodar]

The question is, can it function after that?
Krasnodar in the case of the Third World will not sleep peacefully

[asv363]

Quote: Krasnodar

The question is, can it function after that?

Experienced, in those days of the USSR, the CTBT signed, but did not ratify. So he can.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: asv363

The rocket in the mine is hung out, i.e. There is no direct contact with the walls. Krasnodar can sleep peacefully.

In my opinion, you do not realize what a 200kt blast is ...
Yes, even though she will be in the cradle, the displacement of the rocks will be so. that everything will be wrapped in a mine ...

[Vol4ara]

Quote: SovAr238A

Quote: asv363

The rocket in the mine is hung out, i.e. There is no direct contact with the walls. Krasnodar can sleep peacefully.

In my opinion, you do not realize what a 200kt blast is ...
Yes, even though she will be in the cradle, the displacement of the rocks will be so. that everything will be wrapped in a mine ...

Will be able to function. You must not be very sure what shpu is, read about them and their degrees of protection, a lot of information, including pressure indicators. Then open the nukmap and simulate

[asv363]

In fact, the detonation of two warheads launched from two missiles (i.e., one warhead from different missiles) is difficult to synchronize. About 5-10 - kilotons can not make me laugh.

Interesting for the sake of - did you have anything to do with the construction of silos, their modernization?

[Krasnodar]

Quote: Svarog

They know that we won’t answer .. yes, they don’t intend to attack themselves .. This is all the show for the Russian citizen .. they say that everything is so bad in Russia because of the USA ... and the bourgeoisie, meanwhile, quietly have rents from our natural resources and buy real estate in the USA ....

Speaking of birds. And how many on the site of Svarog? )))

[Svarog]

Quote: Krasnodar

Quote: Svarog

They know that we won’t answer .. yes, they don’t intend to attack themselves .. This is all the show for the Russian citizen .. they say that everything is so bad in Russia because of the USA ... and the bourgeoisie, meanwhile, quietly have rents from our natural resources and buy real estate in the USA ....

Speaking of birds. And how many on the site of Svarog? )))

Flood, please?

[Krasnodar]

No, it just became interesting. I thought that I was communicating with a famous revolutionary in VO, with whom we are constantly discussing. And then another person - will we get to know each other? )))

[Svarog]

Quote: Krasnodar

No, it just became interesting. I thought that I was communicating with a famous revolutionary in VO, with whom we are constantly discussing. And then another person - will we get to know each other? )))

I mean another person?

[Krasnodar]

Another person with the same nickname

[Svarog]

Quote: Krasnodar

Another person with the same nickname

Yes, generally the same .. why do you think so?

[Krasnodar]

I slowed down, I apologize

[Svarog]

Quote: Krasnodar

I slowed down, I apologize

It happens..

[maidan.izrailovich]

This is all the show for the Russian layman .. they say that everything is so bad because of the USA in Russia ...

You sing nicely. Directly on the notes of the State Department.

[Boris Ivanov]

rubber bullets!! you forgot to mention rubber bullets, and non-alcoholic beer)))

[Sergey39]

Similarly, I somehow missed

[cost]

According to some experts, the enemy will still not find out that a missile with a low-power nuclear warhead has been launched against him and will send itsbut more powerful.

Some Pentagon experts think right. It will be so! Only with a small correction - in response, it will not send its - and the whole cascade своих

[5-9]

And this is not for us, well, or for us, but on the territory of third countries .... we are in case of which tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of all kinds of limitrophes (and Amer’s troops there) will roll in handfuls .... in theory this should not lead to mutual MREU .... and with 400 augmented core-bons at Amers this will be a game in one (their) gate ..

[NEXUS]

Quote: Sergey39

Low-power nuclear warheads, skim milk, diet Coca-Cola, rubber woman. Do they really not understand that we will answer in full.

Well, firstly, they don’t sit there and they don’t consider the war in the option of exchanging nuclear strikes at all. For what are missiles with reduced YBZ? For me, everything is simple ... in order not to play with axes, artillery, to drive aircraft carriers, unwanted modes, such as Assad, in this way you can sweep very quickly and relatively cheaply. That is, if you imagine that in the year 14, according to the largest accumulations of the Syrian defense forces, they would have fired rockets with small missiles, then I think Assad has long become history.
Tell me, what about the condemnation of countries for the use of strategic nuclear forces? And who will condemn? We, China? ... and who will hear us in the same UN, which has giblets in the pocket of mattresses? Mattresses all over the world say that they kill people, and they showed something?

[Sergey39]

So what prevented them from doing this in '14 and now? They have tactical charges. From installing them on an ICBM, nothing will change.

[Azimuth]

This is when the United States hooks on someone, for example Iran. He answered them. How will the US respond? A hundred axes? Will not give a ride, they will beat you. But a 5 kiloton ballistic rocket is just that. And "Iran" will think the same, how and how to respond strongly, because it will not seem a little. S 400
HERE will not help the best way to overcome layered air defense, missile defense.

[Zaurbek]

This can allow them to disarm us pointwise with the alleged loss of civilian life and environmental damage.

[IrisFloDataSet]

"We?" :)) Well, the fact that you personally want to die for the emperor is commendable! You are the perfect citizen. But the one who gives orders, he wants to be in his chair. The one that: they will shoot at each other a little bit, they will scratch them with their tongues, well, and .. "if only there was no Big War, Save the Motherland. Well, the medals will be put to sleep posthumously from the belly. like you.

[Alexander X]

Some kind of nonsense (censorship). In response to ICBMs with "reduced power" that have taken off in our direction from the territory of the Russian Federation and from submarine missile carriers, ICBMs with high-powered poison warheads are launched towards the aggressor, because who knows that someone has a "head" of reduced power? It seems that those who come up with such "weakened" missiles have low power heads ...

[vvvjak]

Quote: Alexander X

What a nonsense (censorship)

Well, yes. Well, maybe someone would be calmer to die from a warhead with "reduced power"

Quote: Alexander X

It seems that those who come up with such "weakened" missiles have low power heads ...

I would even say a complete lack of power. This is real and scary.

[5-9]

A missile can carry up to 14 W76 warheads (100 ct) or up to 8 W88 (475 ct).... maybe on paper, but never carried, in the very reality of the existence and / or performance of W88 there are also doubts. Trident D5 rocket is excellent, but its sturgeon must be cut boldly and skillfully ...
But this is a good sign, the old rotting W76 is being renovated with a decrease in power to the tactical level, but the carriers and nuclear warheads go into the START standings (although who knows what will happen to him). Of course, there is a risk that we may "misunderstand" the launch of Trident with TNW at third countries ....

[Operator]

If a two-stage thermonuclear charge is deconstructed by removing the second stage from lithium deuteride, then a single-stage nuclear charge from plutonium will be an order of magnitude lower power.

But the trouble is - the radioactive contamination of the area in this case will increase 20 times due to unreacted plutonium with a half-life of 22000 years (in a two-stage thermonuclear charge, plutonium is completely "burned" due to neutrons from the reaction of lithium deuteride synthesis).

Therefore, I can’t imagine the joy of, for example, Iran from the fact that an American nuclear strike destroyed 3 times less buildings, but radioactively contaminated a 4 times larger area with a duration of 1000 times more.

[vvvjak]

"The Trump administration has argued that a low-yield warhead is needed to contain Russia. Moscow, according to Washington, may feel that the United States will not want to use its current nuclear weapons in the event of a confrontation with the Russian Federation, because the current nuclear weapons are too powerful."[i] [/ i]
"Well, maybe, maybe it will, or maybe not." Some kind of kindergarten.

[maximaniak]

low power nuclear missile launched

Power? say so?

[Old Michael]

Power?

Yes, that's what they say about non-kinetic ammunition.

[Lord of the Sith]

Well, what's the point in this toy power?
What are the Yankees planning?
Surely everything is not so simple here, warheads are some kind of cunning ...

[Nastia makarova]

for testing in third countries

[Lord of the Sith]

Using Ohio-class submarines against third countries is like hammering nails with a microscope or sparrows with a cannon.

[Nastia makarova]

but how to show greatness?)))) money does not always play a role

[Lord of the Sith]

To show greatness, enough of a couple of cruisers, to the extreme AUG.

A similar submarine is designed for serious business, and not the Papuans to drive.

[Nastia makarova]

North Korea Papaus?

[Lord of the Sith]

Well, tell me, lady, when did the SSBN with the Tridents at least once be used against someone, in particular against North Korea?

[Nastia makarova]

not yet but here for the application and are preparing

[Lord of the Sith]

Nobody is preparing anything. Starting even a local nuclear war is like opening a Pandora’s box, and even brainless Yankees understand this.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Lord of the Sith

Surely everything is not so simple here, warheads are some kind of cunning ...

Judging by the power, it could be a neutron bomb ... So cunningly, without raising the fuss, it can be hidden under low-power SBP.
IMHO.

[Alexey-74]

The logic is incomprehensible, if they try to strike with a weak charge, and a full-fledged 100 kilotons arrives, what is the point ???

[Avior]

It is in what is written in the article
Americans want the ability to guarantee a targeted nuclear strike

[Pavel57]

It’s more about Iran and Korea.

[Kleber]

Korea may answer, but Iran, especially against the backdrop of recent events, is a potential target.
Use against Russia is excluded. Recoil torment.

[Fishery]

eco-friendly) such a warhead, lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons

[Vasily Ponomarev]

I read the comments and remember the picture about the deputies

[Bulgarian]

I think there is a chance of being used as a limited strike. And of course not against Russia and China. The United States has long been promoting such a doctrine. With Trump will.

[asv363]

Expert: US began to deploy low-power nuclear weapons on submarines
https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/7640439

"The US Navy is currently deploying a new type of [upgraded] low-yield W76-2 warhead on the Trident ballistic missile submarine," said Hans Christensen, director of nuclear information projects at the FAA. which cites a source in the american government.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: asv363

US begins to deploy low-power nuclear weapons on submarines

Here's the interesting statement:

the Ohio-class strategic submarine Tennessee went on patrol in the last weeks of last year with "one or two" warheads of a new type. "It looks like she's still [on patrol] right now and is expected to return sometime in February." ... in the Pacific, a second submarine is also on patrol. new type warheads. - added the expert.

Such equipment can only be for a preemptive and awesome strike against a non-nuclear enemy, such as Iran. + DPRK (?)
Against the PRC or the Russian Federation, such games will not work. The aggressor will immediately receive the full ...

[Sancho_SP]

Charges like W76 actually allow for “regulation” of power. Only now the amount of fissile material does not decrease from this. Therefore:

1. The change is purely nominal. The warhead remains the same, as much plutonium. The pollution from the application is the same.

2. Legally, a base is being prepared for the creation of the category of “permissible” atomic weapons. Allegedly safe for the environment.

[Fikys]

Quote: Sancho_SP

The warhead remains the same, as much plutonium. The pollution from the application is the same.

Will not work. If plutonium is the same, then either it will not fully react, and then the pollution will be more, or completely, but then the power will be full.

[Sancho_SP]

So this is a thermonuclear charge. Power is determined by the participation of precisely the components of the synthesis.

[SVD68]

Well, yes, or there is fusion, or not. That's all the regulation.

[Old26]

Quote: 5-9

A missile can carry up to 14 W76 warheads (100 ct) or up to 8 W88 (475 ct).... maybe on paper, but never carried, in the very reality of the existence and / or performance of W88 there are also doubts. Trident D5 rocket is excellent, but its sturgeon must be cut boldly and skillfully ...
But this is a good sign, the old rotting W76 is being renovated with a decrease in power to the tactical level, but the carriers and nuclear warheads go into the START standings (although who knows what will happen to him). Of course, there is a risk that we may "misunderstand" the launch of Trident with TNW at third countries ....

The boat could carry 14 W-76 warheads "on paper only." The maximum that the Trident-2 was tested with was 12 W-76 warheads. And up to 8 W-88 - could carry.
Why do you have doubts about the performance of the W-88? Since 2000, the United States has been working on a modernization program for the W-88 warhead. As a result, W-88 alt335 warheads were deployed, then W-88 alt347. In 2014, work began on the modernization of these warheads to the level of W-88 alt 370. The first production W-88 alt 370 warhead was put into service in December 2019.
As for the placement of low-yield warheads on the Tridents, 76-2 missiles will be equipped with W-1-2 warheads. Several warheads per missile. All others will be standard. W-76-1 and W-88 alt347 / W-88 alt 370.

Quote: maximaniak

low power nuclear missile launched

Power? say so?

They say so. There are expressions like "power" and "power". The latter term is less common

[Langf]

And what difference does it make to us with increased or reduced power - the decision centers are still the same.

[Pacifist]

well .. with adequacy there are huge problems. Let their policemen be asked who shot the child with a toy gun on the topic of assessing the situation at the time of the accident.

[den3080]

Quote: Sergey39

Low-power nuclear warheads, skim milk, diet Coca-Cola, rubber woman. Do they really not understand that we will answer in full.

their responsibility has long been lowered, so they customize it ...
and then they will be surprised if something happened (God forbid) with the words: what about us ???

[Victor March 47]

We’ll find out anyway, and launch all our strategic ammunition. Heavenly Father will figure out whether we were right or not.

[Last centurion]

They were also told that no matter what power a warhead would fly in. And in general, no one will wait for her arrival if the target is defined as a trident missile. The retaliatory strike will be all that is in full.

[Old26]

Quote: Hunter 2

Strategic nuclear weapons are not intended for the destruction of small targets, they hit the areas. What the United States wanted to achieve with this is not clear. We have these tasks performed by tactical nuclear weapons. Which the Mattresses practically do not have.

Isn't it possible, not sharpened? Here, for example, the state district power station. The goal is relatively small. The total area, for example 200x400 meters, a building with blocks is even smaller. Why can't this target be hit with a 5 kt warhead? Moreover, the Americans are killing two birds with one stone. While showing "philanthropy". It is not without reason that one of the arguments of the American side was that such a warhead would "minimize" civilian casualties. For the town of power engineers is located at a distance of 2,5-3 km. At the same time, a 100 kt warhead will blow this town to its foundations, and a 5 kt warhead will "save human lives." Tactical weapons still need to be brought to the target. especially if such a target is more than 1000 km away.

Quote: Alexey-74

The logic is incomprehensible, if they try to strike with a weak charge, and a full-fledged 100 kilotons arrives, what is the point ???

And what, besides Russia, is there no one else against whom such a warhead can be used?

Quote: Ezekiel 25-17

In order to find out the CVT, full-scale tests are needed, and in the case of low-power traps, especially, the calculations according to the previous system are not valid.

What's the problem? Technically, this is completely no problem. Launch a mock-up of such a warhead at the test site (observing all its performance characteristics)

Quote: KCA

The United States does not have weapons-grade plutonium for the planned restoration of degrading charges, so they simply reduce the mass of plutonium, the charge power decreases, and not at all an increase in accuracy.

About 90 tons of weapons-grade plutonium in warehouses in the US - is it not plutonium? NGU and then we do not. We have about 160 tons. We can assume that no ...

Quote: Krasnodar

This is because they make disarmament strike weapons - at mines, command posts and other protected objects.

It is unlikely that such warheads are applicable against highly protected targets. But against the infrastructure - easily. And the targets will be disabled, and if necessary, such strike targets will be quickly restored. For highly protected purposes, it is still better to use blocks with a capacity of 100-400 ct. Reduced power permissible with increased accuracy

Quote: Alexander X

Some kind of nonsense (censorship). In response to ICBMs with "reduced power" that have taken off in our direction from the territory of the Russian Federation and from submarine missile carriers, ICBMs with high-powered poison warheads are launched towards the aggressor, because who knows that someone has a "head" of reduced power?

And if not in our direction? After all, not only Russia is an adversary of the United States. Even more likely it is applicable against rogue countries than for us

Quote: Sancho_SP

Charges like W76 actually allow for “regulation” of power. Only now the amount of fissile material does not decrease from this. Therefore:

1. The change is purely nominal. The warhead remains the same, as much plutonium. The pollution from the application is the same.

2. Legally, a base is being prepared for the creation of the category of “permissible” atomic weapons. Allegedly safe for the environment.

Almost all missiles (ICBMs, SLBMs) ​​have fixed power warheads. Multivariance of power is used either in cruise missiles or in free-falling bombs.
A secondary (thermonuclear) unit is removed from such a warhead, which is replaced by an inert unit with the same mass-dimensional characteristics so that the alignment is not disturbed ... The primary unit (plutonium) remains in the same form as on W-76-1

[Avior]

No, it is against Russia, and not against outcasts.
The Americans formally substantiate the designation of these low-power warheads in their nuclear strategy with the fact that this is a guaranteed limited and strictly controlled retaliatory strike against Russia in the event of its single use of low-power nuclear weapons.
In their view, Russia, having advantages in low-power nuclear charges, can strike, hoping that in response the States will not start a global nuclear war, and they cannot provide a limited, guaranteed, equivalent answer.
There is a report on the US nuclear strategy, there they painted all this.
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0218_npr/
and abridged version in Russian
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872876/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY-TRANSLATION-RUSSIAN.PDF
This is the beginning of 2018. In fact, the report is an announcement of the arms race, which we are observing.

in the short term the United States is planning
modify a small number of existing ballistic missiles
underwater base (BRMB) in order to be able to use
low-power nuclear warheads, and in the longer term go to
the use of sea-based cruise missiles (SLCM). ...
MoE and National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) will develop
low-power warhead for installation on the BRMB, in order to have
the ability to deliver an operational retaliatory strike and break through the enemy defenses.
This is a relatively low-cost and time-saving modification.
existing capacity

They want to be able to deliver strictly controlled, operational and guaranteed single strikes, formally, of course, strictly as a retaliatory measure, as usual
SLBM is just right for this. They do not depend on the location, small flight time. You can even immediately prior to launch say that the launch will be a single and even a specific goal to indicate - all the same, the missile defense will not be able to cover everyone from such missiles.
Everything according to the strategy written by them 2 years ago
And then it will be seen whether they adhere to it.
The next step was to record long-range nuclear missiles.

[Jack O'Neill]

Decapitation missiles. They increased accuracy, gave low-power charges. Everything is logical and simple.
They do it right, since the goal is not to hit the area, but to the point.
In general, the bell is so-so. However, it’s quite working.

[ser56]

Let them put more such nuclear warheads, our mines are designed for more powerful nuclear warheads!
As for increased accuracy - this is a dark matter - they did not shoot at real targets with anti-missile and anti-missile defense systems

[SovAr238A]

Quote: ser56

Let them put more such nuclear warheads, our mines are designed for more powerful nuclear warheads!
As for increased accuracy - this is a dark matter - they did not shoot at real targets with anti-missile and anti-missile defense systems

Yeah ...
tell us more that our silos are designed for a direct hit of 1mt ...
And that in Dombarovsky there are missile defense systems ...
I understand that you are coming up with stronger and stronger. but there are no such fairy tales as you write!

[ser56]

Quote: SovAr238A

tell us more that our silos

designed for start-up (according to open data )
"High class: funnel pile up to 2 m thick and a shock wave of 5-10 MPa with the simultaneous action of a shock front and a high-temperature fire hemisphere (silo R-36M2, Minuteman-2, 3, LGM-118 6-7 MPa, since 1971);
in other words, the NSC power does not matter, the proximity of the crater to the silos does matter, and the lower the power, the less the crater - is it so accessible?

Quote: SovAr238A

you come up stronger and stronger. but there are no such tales as you write!

if you don’t know something, these are your problems

[cniza]

The United States began to arm submarines with low-power nuclear missiles

All the same, they harbor the idea of ​​a limited nuclear war ...

[Old26]

Quote: ser56

Let them put more such nuclear warheads, our mines are designed for more powerful nuclear warheads! feel
As for increased accuracy - this is a dark matter - they did not shoot at real targets with anti-missile and anti-missile defense systems

Sergei! ON THE BOAT WILL BE TOTAL TWO missiles with such warheads. The remaining 18 with warheads W-76 and W-88. At the same time, we have mines now about 120, in reality it will be a little more in a few years. So for our mines, they basically want warheads, which is called behind the eyes.
But something about the missile defense systems of the mines is not observed ...

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Old26

But something about the missile defense systems of the mines is not observed ..

There is a facility. System KAZ "Mozyr", you may have heard? If not, read: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7+%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B7%D1%8B%D1 % 80% D1% 8C & rlz

[ser56]

Sorry - did not read to you - answered earlier ...

[ser56]

Quote: Old26

The boat will have only TWO missiles with such warheads.

already good ... a little chicken ... multiply by the number of boats - it will become even better ...
and most importantly - a bright prospect in this matter ...

Quote: Old26

But something about the missile defense systems of the mines is not observed ...

after the Americans left the missile defense system, there are no restrictions, the question of expediency and decision of the leadership ... In my opinion, it is relatively inexpensive and effective, since no need to look for nuclear warheads - it will fly by itself and you can shoot down nearby "In 2013, the Russian Ministry of Defense resumed work on an active protection complex (KAZ) called the Mozyr ROC for silos, which were suspended in the late 1990s - early 2000s (in 1988-1991, during combat tests of the complex at the Kura training ground, the warhead of the Voevoda missile was successfully hit.) The complex, upon detecting an ICBM warhead, cruise missile or high-precision maneuvering bomb, is approaching the mine, fires at a speed of 1,8, 30 km / s a ​​cloud of metal arrows and balls with a diameter of about 6 mm to a height of 40 km. One salvo contains about 10 thousand metal striking elements. [XNUMX] "
http://eurasian-defence.ru/node/2626

[Gopstop]

Currently, the US Navy has deployed a new type of [modernized] low power warheads

Do they hope not to spoil the skin of Russia? Well, hope dies last .. Russia also has such different means (not necessarily nuclear weapons) From the carcass of an American eagle, we will make a stuffed animal .. To remember and remember for centuries "gentlemen" ..

[Ax Matt]

The logic is clear: who needs a "conquered" lunar landscape later ... They want to hit military targets point-wise and then come to earth as winners with minimal problems of contamination of the area. The wrong ones were attacked! I remember the CWP: I’ll bury myself, I’ll bury myself, and when they come, I’ll crawl out and shovel along the ridge until we’ve got rid of all the enemies. They will not have an inch of Russia !!! They will die here even without high technologies !!!

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Ax Matt

Dying here without high technology !!!

"And it's too early for us to die
We still have things to do at home! "(C)

[SovAr238A]

Quote: lucul

No fuel ran out

That is fuel)))
Weapon Plutonium is then obtained after he visited the nuclear power plant. And the Americans everywhere shut down their nuclear power plants-where did the fuel come from ....

90 reactors in the USA and 30 reactors in Russia ...
Where, of course, judging by your logic ...

And you should know this ...

The HEU-LEU agreement (highly enriched uranium - low enriched uranium) is an intergovernmental agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States of America concluded in Washington on February 18, 1993, providing for the irreversible reprocessing of at least 500 tons of Russian weapons (highly enriched) uranium (equivalent to about 20 thousand nuclear warheads ) to low enriched uranium - fuel for US nuclear power plants.
since 1945, only 550 tons of weapons-grade uranium were produced in the United States. In the USSR, about the same.

The agreement was designed for 20 years and ended in 2013. In total, 14 tons of low enriched uranium were exported from Russia to the United States under the program.
This agreement is a continuation of Russia's nuclear disarmament policy and assistance in strengthening the US strategic nuclear forces initiated by the Chernomyrdin-Gore deal in 1993. Then, as a result of the agreement between the USA and the Russian Federation, Russia pledged for scanty money (with the cost of the entire mass of charges of $ 8 trillion, it was lost for 11,9 billion) to transfer to the Americans 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium with enrichment of 90 percent or more

this should make it clear to you - maybe the Russian stock of weapons-grade uranium is still at a lower level ...

[Mihail2019]

This is where you read about 500 tons with an enrichment of more than 90%?
This was the original weapon-grade uranium, but the Americans were "diluted" with these same 500 tons to fuel 3-5%.
Do not mislead people.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Michael2019

This is where you read about 500 tons with an enrichment of more than 90%?
This was the original weapon-grade uranium, but the Americans were "diluted" with these same 500 tons to fuel 3-5%.
Do not mislead people.

Are you so incapable of reading the letters of the Russian text?
In 50 years, both we and the Americans have developed approximately 500 tons of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium.
And we were left without it at all.
Almost all of their stocks were sold to the Americans.
so doesn’t it reach your level of mind too?
We do not have 10% of those reserves.
And they sold a thousand times cheaper than the real price.
we didn’t have 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium at all.
But with the Americans, he remained under this agreement.
And by the way, this agreement was prolonged further.
Learn to read, not to invent a gag.

[asv363]

Quote: SovAr238A

They sold almost all of their stocks to the Americans. So doesn’t it reach your level of reason too? We don’t have 10% of those stocks either. And they sold a thousand times cheaper than the real price. We didn’t have 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium in general. remained under this agreement. And by the way, this agreement was prolonged further

Stop lying. In Soviet times, much more weapons-grade uranium was accumulated here than 550 tons of HEU you indicated. About 2 times with a ponytail. Further. No further dilution was made (after the delivery of the last batch in 2013). The dismantling of the line for mixing diluted uranium with natural and the addition of a special marker was completed in 2015 or 2016.

[Mihail2019]

Better yet, find the article "Megatons to Megawatts" on the geoenergy.ru website. Everything is much better described there and without yelling in the style of "everything is lost!".

[Mihail2019]

Yeah, yeah .. For containment .. They just spanked their enrichment technologies and now they stupidly cannot make new warheads. And since the life of the warhead is determined by physics, they have to saw the old powerful ones into "new" less powerful ones.

[CBR600]

Quote: SovAr238A

Quote: lucul

No fuel ran out

That is fuel)))
Weapon Plutonium is then obtained after he visited the nuclear power plant. And the Americans everywhere shut down their nuclear power plants-where did the fuel come from ....

This agreement is a continuation of Russia's nuclear disarmament policy and assistance in strengthening the US strategic nuclear forces initiated by the Chernomyrdin-Gore deal in 1993. Then, as a result of the agreement between the USA and the Russian Federation, Russia pledged for scanty money (with the cost of the entire mass of charges of $ 8 trillion, it was lost for 11,9 billion) to transfer to the Americans 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium with enrichment of 90 percent or more

this should make it clear to you - maybe the Russian stock of weapons-grade uranium is still at a lower level ...

.... Wild Betrayal. I would like to know more about this. And what was the GDP lamenting about (there was still some kind of deal or this)?
Uranium (as far as I know) is absent in Russia. We are developing it with someone. But there is one BUT ....
It was only from the media that I learned that the 4th power unit was launched at the Beloyarsk NPP, where a closed cycle of using uranium was created. Yes, just uranium, because the cycle takes LEU on board; wastes from nuclear power plants that were brought to us in Russia as nuclear waste. Compositions from all over the world. Waste bins. I remember how I was indignant about this. But six months ago I heard about this new development of nuclear scientists and smiled. For in theory, now our blocks will be able to recycle all this garbage. I could be wrong, correct pliz, very interesting. It all looks very fantastic.

[Errr]

Quote: CBR600

Uranium (as far as I know) is absent in Russia.

Uranium in Russia is not only available, but also mined. Wikipedia to help you:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Добыча_урана_в_России

[Operator]

Quote: ser56

NSC power does not matter, the proximity of the crater to the silo matters

First of all, the circular probable deviation of the crash site of the ICBM / SLBM warhead from the silo head is important, which in the case of astrocorrection is about 100 meters. It is impossible to reduce the KVO because of the hypersonic speed of the BB (> 10M) at the moment of collision with the ground, the presence of a plasma cocoon and the absence of onboard guidance systems operating through plasma (with the exception of gravimetric ones with KVO 200 meters).

So without a 150-ctn BB in the counter-force strike on the silos, you can’t do yet.

[Old26]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

There is a facility. KAZ system "Mozyr", you may have heard? If not, read:

I heard. Moreover, he talked with a man who served on this site (unfortunately, five years ago he went to another world). According to him, all this will work perfectly on cruise missiles, free-falling bombs and high-precision weapons. The product passed the tests, however, in his opinion, it is purely formal, therefore financing was covered.
System parameters - the speed of firing striking from 1,5 to 1,8 km / s. Accuracy, we must pay tribute to the very high. The "convergence" of the beam of these damaging elements was achieved at a certain range (during tests it was 1-2 km. Target detection range - THIRTY KILOMETERS. The azimuth guidance was at least 180 °, vertical - 90 ° or more. A range of 1-2 km was achieved, although the TTZ should be 6 km.
The question is that
1. The KAZ ShPU radar system can jam. Including the leading charge. But even if this does not happen, then:
2. If we assume that the warhead is suitable at a speed of about 4M, then it will travel a distance of 30 km (provided not just a ground but a contact explosion) in about 22 seconds. The range of defeat by KAZ is even 6 km. That is, he must shoot so that a bunch of damaging elements and BG meet at point X. A distance of 6 km, this beam should have passed in 4-5 seconds. That is, the process of aiming took 17-18 seconds.

During the test, the azimuth of the approach and the speed characteristics of the block were clearly known. In fact, aiming trunks was not carried out. Yes, and BG were amazed. That is essentially because the tests were formal. It is not known from what angle (with what azimuth) the enemy BG will go, at what angle and at what speed. Will the KAZ system be able to aim? Nevertheless, actuators have finite speeds of action.
And at least 6 years have passed, but something has not been heard about it. Over the years, we heard about a bunch of "novya", but not about this complex. so I don’t think this complex is in service. In fact, if not a "stillborn system," then at least it is "more likely dead than alive" in relation to warheads of intercontinental missiles.

[lvov_aleksey]

if I repeat even:
star-striped stupid people

[lvov_aleksey]

Quote: Old26

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

There is a facility. KAZ system "Mozyr", you may have heard? If not, read:

I heard. Moreover, he talked with a man who served on this site (unfortunately, five years ago he went to another world). According to him, all this will work perfectly on cruise missiles, free-falling bombs and high-precision weapons. The product passed the tests, however, in his opinion, it is purely formal, therefore financing was covered.
System parameters - the speed of firing striking from 1,5 to 1,8 km / s. Accuracy, we must pay tribute to the very high. The "convergence" of the beam of these damaging elements was achieved at a certain range (during tests it was 1-2 km. Target detection range - THIRTY KILOMETERS. The azimuth guidance was at least 180 °, vertical - 90 ° or more. A range of 1-2 km was achieved, although the TTZ should be 6 km.
The question is that
1. The KAZ ShPU radar system can jam. Including the leading charge. But even if this does not happen, then:
2. If we assume that the warhead is suitable at a speed of about 4M, then it will travel a distance of 30 km (provided not just a ground but a contact explosion) in about 22 seconds. The range of defeat by KAZ is even 6 km. That is, he must shoot so that a bunch of damaging elements and BG meet at point X. A distance of 6 km, this beam should have passed in 4-5 seconds. That is, the process of aiming took 17-18 seconds.

During the test, the azimuth of the approach and the speed characteristics of the block were clearly known. In fact, aiming trunks was not carried out. Yes, and BG were amazed. That is essentially because the tests were formal. It is not known from what angle (with what azimuth) the enemy BG will go, at what angle and at what speed. Will the KAZ system be able to aim? Nevertheless, actuators have finite speeds of action.
And at least 6 years have passed, but something has not been heard about it. Over the years, we heard about a bunch of "novya", but not about this complex. so I don’t think this complex is in service. In fact, if not a "stillborn system," then at least it is "more likely dead than alive" in relation to warheads of intercontinental missiles.

and I’ll just tell you, if you don’t hear it, it doesn’t mean that you don’t believe it.