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

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.
Photos used:
lockheedmartin.com
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sergey39 30 January 2020 15: 03 New
    • 39
    • 7
    +32
    Low-power nuclear warheads, skim milk, diet Coca-Cola, rubber woman. Do they really not understand that we will answer in full.
    1. svp67 30 January 2020 15: 07 New
      • 15
      • 5
      +10
      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 ...
      1. Svetlana 30 January 2020 15: 21 New
        • 9
        • 4
        +5
        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.
        1. svp67 30 January 2020 15: 23 New
          • 7
          • 3
          +4
          Quote: Svetlana
          Plus - Minus 200 meta is on the drum.

          This is at high power, and at low power, accuracy is very necessary.
          1. Svetlana 30 January 2020 15: 26 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            Yes. But the very need to improve accuracy is a consequence of lowering the charge, and not vice versa
            1. Hunter 2 30 January 2020 15: 41 New
              • 13
              • 4
              +9
              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.
              1. maxim947 30 January 2020 16: 26 New
                • 9
                • 2
                +7
                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 usually beautifully breach, humanists are sucks. Just problems with the number of nuclear charges, that’s the whole point of this “modernization”.
                1. hydrox 30 January 2020 20: 48 New
                  • 3
                  • 2
                  +1
                  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).
              2. Lexus 30 January 2020 16: 50 New
                • 7
                • 14
                -7
                What the United States wanted to achieve with this is not clear

                Minimize collateral damage and radiation contamination. In other words, the Americans are sure that no one will give the order to use nuclear weapons in Russia from the current “rowers”, and that people shouldn’t recover, they need to be destroyed quickly, for this just needs the equivalent of several tons of explosives for the “cover”. TNT thus deliver overhead. And we can continue to continue to quietly export resources, because with the army that we have now, we will never be able to fight back without nuclear weapons.
                Those. “tandem” suits them in everything - the country is degrading, “good” is being sold. But "the clouds go gloomy," and what if the Soviet Union is reborn? Then the "Auction of unprecedented generosity" will undoubtedly end. And to two strong opponents, the USSR and China, to confront the West, "the navel will untie."
                1. LiSiCyn 30 January 2020 17: 07 New
                  • 10
                  • 2
                  +8
                  With minor changes, I agree with your opinion. yes
              3. for
                for 30 January 2020 18: 01 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                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.
                1. hydrox 30 January 2020 20: 52 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  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.
                2. eklmn 30 January 2020 22: 14 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  “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. ”
              4. Svetlana 30 January 2020 20: 41 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                >>>> What the United States wanted to achieve with 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.
              5. Vol4ara 30 January 2020 21: 26 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                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
            2. SovAr238A 30 January 2020 19: 42 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              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?
              1. hydrox 30 January 2020 21: 43 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                At that time, positioning systems did not fly in space, and soon there are already a dozen of them there ...
        2. Ezekiel 25-17 30 January 2020 15: 25 New
          • 3
          • 5
          -2
          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.
          1. hydrox 30 January 2020 21: 00 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            And let our value not hurt you: it’s not a conveyor, piece goods, the cost is determined by 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.
            1. Vol4ara 30 January 2020 21: 27 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              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
              1. hydrox 30 January 2020 21: 40 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                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 ...
                1. Vol4ara 30 January 2020 21: 42 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  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
        3. knn54 30 January 2020 16: 24 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          The main task is to hit the mines, so that there is no "answer". Therefore, the CVO plays an important role.
          Well, reduced power. Apparently, for Iran, the DPRK.
          1. svp67 30 January 2020 17: 44 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: knn54
            The main task is to hit the mines, so that there is no "answer".

            Rather, control points, nodes and communication lines ... For this, as well as for hitting important strategic, infrastructure facilities, accuracy is very important
      2. 1959ain 30 January 2020 15: 25 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        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 negative
        1. lucul 30 January 2020 18: 11 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          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 ....
      3. Ezekiel 25-17 30 January 2020 15: 30 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        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.
      4. KCA
        KCA 30 January 2020 16: 11 New
        • 9
        • 3
        +6
        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.
        1. Military77 30 January 2020 16: 30 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          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.
          1. KCA
            KCA 30 January 2020 16: 43 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            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
        2. asv363 30 January 2020 16: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          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?
          1. KCA
            KCA 30 January 2020 16: 56 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            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
            1. asv363 30 January 2020 17: 27 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              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.
          2. Military77 30 January 2020 16: 56 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Maybe there are, only these are old stocks, the Pu-239 has an "expiration date" of just 20-25 years. After this period, it loses its properties.
            1. asv363 30 January 2020 18: 09 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Plutonium pitas (Americanism, alas, have taken root) are sent for "remelting." The mass loss is not so great. In any case, nothing prevents (from a technical point of view) starting it up again or separation from SNF.
              1. KCA
                KCA 30 January 2020 18: 16 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                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 ...
                1. asv363 30 January 2020 23: 23 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  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 to the author LJ and pass about the "rusting plutonium" and 2 BG from 3.
                  1. KCA
                    KCA 31 January 2020 00: 34 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    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
                    1. asv363 31 January 2020 01: 15 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Here! Well written, everything about the case.
                      1. KCA
                        KCA 31 January 2020 03: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        This is not me, found on the internet
                  2. Military77 31 January 2020 08: 53 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    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 for initiating a thermonuclear explosion reaction), the so-called “plutonium buttons”, was closed. As far as I understand, there is no other similar enterprise in the USA
                    1. asv363 31 January 2020 13: 58 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      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.
      5. maidan.izrailovich 30 January 2020 16: 37 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        ... that means they’ve increased the accuracy of this warhead.

        Hardly.
        This is another matter. The United States has long nurtured the doctrine of "limited" nuclear war. So to speak for regional conflicts.
        Since the world community has “swallowed” the use of depleted uranium in Yugoslavia and Iraq, the next move is just the same low-power nuclear charges.
        Potential victims still have time to buy Russian air defense systems.
      6. SovAr238A 30 January 2020 19: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        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 ...
        1. Vol4ara 30 January 2020 21: 35 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          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
    2. Svarog 30 January 2020 15: 07 New
      • 16
      • 27
      -11
      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 ....
      1. Vasily Ponomarev 30 January 2020 15: 46 New
        • 0
        • 7
        -7
        just like the governor of Khabarovsk
      2. Krasnodar 30 January 2020 16: 08 New
        • 6
        • 3
        +3
        This is because they make disarmament strike weapons - at mines, command posts and other protected objects.
        1. asv363 30 January 2020 16: 56 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          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.
          1. Krasnodar 30 January 2020 17: 01 New
            • 7
            • 3
            +4
            They can embed nearby, with a depression of 50 m
            This is what it is designed for.
            1. asv363 30 January 2020 17: 11 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              The rocket in the mine is hung out, i.e. There is no direct contact with the walls. Krasnodar can sleep peacefully.
              1. Krasnodar 30 January 2020 17: 21 New
                • 7
                • 3
                +4
                The question is, can it function after that?
                Krasnodar in the case of the Third World will not sleep peacefully
                1. asv363 30 January 2020 17: 54 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  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.
              2. SovAr238A 30 January 2020 20: 13 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                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 ...
                1. Vol4ara 30 January 2020 21: 39 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  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
                2. asv363 30 January 2020 23: 53 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  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?
      3. Krasnodar 30 January 2020 16: 32 New
        • 8
        • 5
        +3
        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? )))
        1. Svarog 30 January 2020 16: 33 New
          • 8
          • 11
          -3
          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?
          1. Krasnodar 30 January 2020 16: 37 New
            • 7
            • 4
            +3
            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? ))) hi
            1. Svarog 30 January 2020 18: 18 New
              • 5
              • 6
              -1
              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? ))) hi

              I mean another person?
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Krasnodar 30 January 2020 18: 26 New
                • 6
                • 3
                +3
                Another person with the same nickname
                1. Svarog 30 January 2020 18: 35 New
                  • 4
                  • 6
                  -2
                  Quote: Krasnodar
                  Another person with the same nickname

                  Yes, generally the same .. what why do you think so?
                  1. Krasnodar 30 January 2020 18: 48 New
                    • 5
                    • 3
                    +2
                    I slowed down, I apologize
                    1. Svarog 30 January 2020 18: 49 New
                      • 2
                      • 6
                      -4
                      Quote: Krasnodar
                      I slowed down, I apologize

                      It happens..
      4. maidan.izrailovich 30 January 2020 16: 40 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        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. crying
    3. Boris Ivanov 30 January 2020 15: 13 New
      • 13
      • 1
      +12
      rubber bullets!! you forgot to mention rubber bullets, and non-alcoholic beer)))
      1. Sergey39 30 January 2020 15: 25 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Similarly, I somehow missed laughing
        1. rich 30 January 2020 15: 42 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          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 hi
    4. 5-9
      5-9 30 January 2020 15: 50 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      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 ..
    5. NEXUS 30 January 2020 16: 10 New
      • 6
      • 5
      +1
      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?
      1. Sergey39 30 January 2020 16: 16 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        So what prevented them from doing this in '14 and now? They have tactical charges. From installing them on an ICBM, nothing will change.
        1. Azimuth 30 January 2020 16: 44 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          This is when the United States will hook someone, such as Iran. He will answer them. What will the USA answer? A hundred axes? Do not drive, beat. But the 5 kiloton ballistic missile itself. And “Iran” will think the same how and how to respond strongly because it will not seem enough. C 400
          HERE will not help the best way to overcome layered air defense, missile defense.
    6. Zaurbek 30 January 2020 17: 13 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      This can allow them to disarm us pointwise with the alleged loss of civilian life and environmental damage.
    7. IrisFloDataSet 30 January 2020 17: 16 New
      • 3
      • 6
      -3
      "We?" :)) Well, what you personally want to die for the emperor is commendable! You are the perfect citizen. But the one who gives orders, he really wants in the chair. So what: they pull at each other in a small way, scratch their tongues, well .. .. if only there wasn’t a Great War, Saved the homeland. Well, the medals are posthumously poured from the belly. like you.
    8. The comment was deleted.
  2. Alexander X 30 January 2020 15: 09 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    What a nonsense (censorship). In response to the ICBMs that took off in our direction with "reduced power" from the territory of the Russian Federation and from submarine missile launch vehicles, they launched in the direction of the aggressor of ICBMs with poisonous warheads of increased power, because who knows that someone has a "head" of reduced power? It seems that the heads of low power for those who come up with such "weakened" missiles ...
    1. vvvjak 30 January 2020 15: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Alexander X
      What a nonsense (censorship)

      Well, yes. Well, maybe someone calmer to die from a warhead with "reduced power"
      Quote: Alexander X
      It seems that the heads of low power for those who come up with such "weakened" missiles ...

      I would even say a complete lack of power. This is real and scary.
  3. 5-9
    5-9 30 January 2020 15: 11 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    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 W76 rotting is being renovated with a decrease in power to a tactical level, but carriers and nuclear warheads are offset by START (although who knows what will happen to him). Of course, there is a risk that the launch of the Trident with nuclear weapons in third countries, we may "not understand" ....
  4. Operator 30 January 2020 15: 12 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    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 that the radioactive contamination of the area in this case will increase by a factor of 20 due to plutonium that has not reacted during the explosion with a half-life of 22000 years (in a two-stage thermonuclear charge, plutonium is completely “burned out” due to neutrons from the lithium deuteride synthesis reaction).

    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.
  5. vvvjak 30 January 2020 15: 18 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    "The Trump administration has argued that Russia needs a low-power warhead to deter Russia. Moscow, according to Washington, might find that the United States will not want to use its current nuclear weapons in the event of a confrontation with the Russian Federation, as the current nuclear weapons have too much power."[i] [/ i]
    "Well, maybe it will probably be so or it may not be." Some kind of kindergarten.
  6. maximaniak 30 January 2020 15: 21 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    low power nuclear missile launched

    Power? say so?
    1. Old Michael 30 January 2020 15: 29 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Power?

      Yes, that's what they say about non-kinetic ammunition.
  7. Lord of the Sith 30 January 2020 15: 34 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    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 ...
    1. Nastia makarova 30 January 2020 15: 39 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      for testing in third countries
      1. Lord of the Sith 30 January 2020 15: 41 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Using an Ohio class submarine against third countries is like hammering nails with a microscope or sparrows from a cannon.
        1. Nastia makarova 30 January 2020 15: 50 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          but how to show greatness?)))) money does not always play a role
          1. Lord of the Sith 30 January 2020 16: 44 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            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.
            1. Nastia makarova 31 January 2020 07: 52 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              North Korea Papaus?
              1. Lord of the Sith 31 January 2020 10: 13 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Well, tell me, lady, when did the SSBN with the Tridents at least once be used against someone, in particular against North Korea?
                1. Nastia makarova 31 January 2020 10: 45 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  not yet but here for the application and are preparing
                  1. Lord of the Sith 31 January 2020 10: 49 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Nobody is preparing anything. Starting even a local nuclear war is like opening a Pandora’s box, and even brainless Yankees understand this.
    2. Boa kaa 30 January 2020 19: 58 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      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.
  8. Alexey-74 30 January 2020 15: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The logic is incomprehensible, if they try to strike with a weak charge, and a full-fledged 100 kilotons arrives, what is the point ???
    1. Avior 30 January 2020 21: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      It is in what is written in the article
      Americans want the ability to guarantee a targeted nuclear strike
  9. Pavel57 30 January 2020 15: 41 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It’s more about Iran and Korea.
    1. Kleber 30 January 2020 16: 35 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Korea may answer, but Iran, especially against the backdrop of recent events, is a potential target.
      Use against Russia is excluded. Recoil torment.
  10. Fishery 30 January 2020 15: 50 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    eco-friendly) such a warhead, lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons
  11. Vasily Ponomarev 30 January 2020 15: 51 New
    • 1
    • 7
    -6
    I read the comments and remember the picture about the deputies
  12. Bulgarian 30 January 2020 16: 08 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    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.
  13. asv363 30 January 2020 16: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Expert: US began to deploy low-power nuclear weapons on submarines
    https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/7640439

    "Currently, the US Navy has deployed a new type of [modernized] W76-2 low-power warheads on a Trident ballistic missile submarine," said author of the article, director of nuclear projects at the FAA, Hans Christensen, which cites a source in the american government.
    1. Boa kaa 30 January 2020 21: 14 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: asv363
      US begins to deploy low-power nuclear weapons on submarines

      Here's the interesting statement:
      Ohio-class Tennessee strategic submarine set off on patrol in the last weeks of last year with "one or two" new type warheads. “Apparently, she’s still [on patrol], she’s expected to return sometime in February” ... in the Pacific, a second submarine is also patrolling 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 ...
  14. Sancho_SP 30 January 2020 16: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    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.
    1. Fikys 31 January 2020 01: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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.
      1. Sancho_SP 31 January 2020 08: 18 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So this is a thermonuclear charge. Power is determined by the participation of precisely the components of the synthesis.
        1. SVD68 31 January 2020 08: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, yes, or there is fusion, or not. That's all the regulation.
  15. Old26 30 January 2020 16: 18 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    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 W76 rotting is being renovated with a decrease in power to a tactical level, but carriers and nuclear warheads are offset by START (although who knows what will happen to him). Of course, there is a risk that the launch of the Trident with nuclear weapons in third countries, we may "not understand" ....


    14 W-76 warheads the boat could carry "only on paper". The maximum with which Trident 2 was tested 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 regards the deployment of reduced power warheads on the Trident, 76-2 missiles will be equipped with W-1-2 warheads. A few warheads on the rocket. All the rest 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 is an expression of "power" and "power." The last term is less common.
  16. Langf 30 January 2020 16: 24 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    And what difference does it make to us with increased or reduced power - the decision centers are still the same.
  17. Pacifist 30 January 2020 16: 24 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    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.
  18. den3080 30 January 2020 16: 28 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    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 ???
  19. Victor March 47 30 January 2020 16: 43 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    We’ll find out anyway, and launch all our strategic ammunition. Heavenly Father will figure out whether we were right or not.
  20. Last centurion 30 January 2020 17: 01 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    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.
  21. Old26 30 January 2020 17: 05 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    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.

    Yes not really, not sharpened? Here, for example, state district power station. The goal is relatively small. The whole territory, for example 200x400 meters, a building with blocks is even smaller. Why this target cannot be hit with a 5 ct warhead. Moreover, the Americans kill two birds with one stone. At the same time, showing "humanity." Not without reason, one of the arguments of the American side was that such a warhead "minimizes" casualties among the civilian population. For the town of power engineers is at a distance of 2,5-3 km. At the same time, a 100-kt warhead will demolish this town to the foundation, and a 5-kt will "save human lives." The tactical weapon still needs to be conveyed to the target. especially if such a target is located at a distance of more than 1000 km.

    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
    What a nonsense (censorship). In response to the ICBMs that took off in our direction with "reduced power" from the territory of the Russian Federation and from submarine missile launch vehicles, they launched in the direction of the aggressor of ICBMs with poisonous warheads of increased power, 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
    1. Avior 30 January 2020 22: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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 smile
      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.
      hi
  22. Jack O'Neill 30 January 2020 17: 13 New
    • 1
    • 6
    -5
    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.
  23. ser56 30 January 2020 17: 17 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Let them put more such nuclear warheads, our mines are designed for more powerful nuclear warheads! repeat
    As for increased accuracy - this is a dark matter - they did not shoot at real targets with anti-missile and anti-missile defense systems hi
    1. SovAr238A 30 January 2020 20: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: ser56
      Let them put more such nuclear warheads, our mines are designed for more powerful nuclear warheads! repeat
      As for increased accuracy - this is a dark matter - they did not shoot at real targets with anti-missile and anti-missile defense systems hi

      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!
      1. ser56 31 January 2020 12: 36 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: SovAr238A
        tell us more that our silos

        designed for start-up (according to open data repeat )
        "High grade: 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 (silos R-36M2, Minutmen-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? request

        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 hi
  24. cniza 30 January 2020 17: 18 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The United States began to arm submarines with low-power nuclear missiles


    All the same, they harbor the idea of ​​a limited nuclear war ... stop
  25. Old26 30 January 2020 18: 06 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    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 ...
    1. Boa kaa 30 January 2020 21: 44 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Old26
      But something about the missile defense systems of the mines is not observed ..

      Objective is. KAZ system "Mozyr", maybe they 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
      1. ser56 31 January 2020 12: 42 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Sorry - did not read to you - answered earlier ... request
    2. ser56 31 January 2020 12: 42 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      The boat will have only TWO missiles with such warheads.

      already good ... a little chicken ... hi multiply by the number of boats - it will become even better ... hi
      and most importantly - a bright prospect in this matter ... bully
      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 the feasibility and decision of the leadership ... In my opinion, this is relatively not expensive and effective, because no need to look for nuclear warheads - you can fly by yourself and shoot down nearby. "In 2013, the Russian Ministry of Defense resumed work on an active defense complex (KAZ) under the name of Mozyr Design Bureau for silos, which were suspended in the late 1990s and early 2000s (In 1988-1991, during the combat tests of the complex at the Kura training ground, the Voyevoda missile warhead was successfully hit.) The complex, when it finds an ICBM warhead approaching the mine, a cruise missile or a high-precision maneuvering bomb, fires at a speed of 1,8, 30 km / s cloud of metal arrows and balls with a diameter of about 6 mm to a height of 40 km. One volley contains about 10 thousand metal striking elements. [XNUMX] "
      http://eurasian-defence.ru/node/2626
  26. Gopstop 30 January 2020 18: 15 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Currently, the US Navy has deployed a new type of [modernized] low power warheads

    Hoping 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’ll make a stuffed animal .. So that the "gentlemen" will remember and remember for centuries ..
  27. Ax Matt 30 January 2020 18: 24 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The logic is clear: who then needs the “conquered” lunar landscape ... They want to hit the military targets pointwise and then come to the earth as winners with minimal problems of contamination of the area. Not those attacked! I remember NVP: I’ll burrow, burrow, and when they come, I will crawl out along the ridge with a shovel, until we let everyone know the adversaries. They will not be an inch of Russia !!! Dying here without high technology !!!
    1. Boa kaa 30 January 2020 21: 48 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      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)
  28. SovAr238A 30 January 2020 20: 09 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    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 ...
    1. Mihail2019 31 January 2020 09: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This is where you read about 500 tons with an enrichment of more than 90%?
      This was the initial weapons-grade uranium, but for the Americans these very 500 tons were “diluted” to fuel 3-5%.
      Do not mislead people.
      1. SovAr238A 31 January 2020 20: 16 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Michael2019
        This is where you read about 500 tons with an enrichment of more than 90%?
        This was the initial weapons-grade uranium, but for the Americans these very 500 tons were “diluted” 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.
        1. asv363 1 February 2020 12: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          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.
    2. Mihail2019 31 January 2020 09: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Better yet, find the article "Megatons to megawatts" on the site "geoenergetika.ru". Everything is much better described there and without yelling in the style of "everything is lost!".
  29. Mihail2019 31 January 2020 09: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yeah, yeah .. For deterrence .. They just splashed their enrichment technology and now stupidly can’t make new warheads. And since the life of a warhead is determined by physics, they have to cut old powerful ones into "new" less powerful ones.
  30. CBR600 31 January 2020 10: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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 ....
    I just learned from the media that the 4th power unit was launched at the Beloyarsk NPP, where a closed cycle of uranium use has been created. Yes, it’s just uranium, because the cycle takes on board the LEU, i.e. nuclear waste brought to us in Russia like nuclear waste. Compositions from around the world. In waste bins. I remember how I was indignant about this. But about six months ago I heard about this new development of nuclear scientists and smiled. For in theory now all this garbage our blocks will be able to recycle. I could be wrong, correct pliz, Pts interesting. All this looks really fantastic.
    1. Errr 3 February 2020 09: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: CBR600
      Uranium (as far as I know) is absent in Russia.
      hi
      Uranium in Russia is not only available, but also mined. Wikipedia to help you:
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Добыча_урана_в_России
  31. Operator 31 January 2020 12: 59 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    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 place of impact of the ICBM / SLBM combat unit from the silo head, which in the case of astro correction is about 100 meters, matters. It is impossible to reduce the CVO due to the hypersonic velocity of the BB (> 10M) at the moment of collision with the ground, the presence of a plasma cocoon and the absence of airborne guidance systems operating through the plasma (with the exception of gravimetric with a CVO of 200 meters).

    So without a 150-ctn BB in the counter-force strike on the silos, you can’t do yet.
  32. Old26 31 January 2020 14: 59 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Quote: BoA KAA
    Objective is. KAZ system "Mozyr", maybe they 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 rate of fire of striking from 1,5 to 1,8 km / s. Accuracy, we must pay tribute is very high. A convergence of the beam of these striking elements was achieved at a certain range (in tests it was 1-2 km. The target detection range is 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 about this is not heard. Over the years, they heard about the heap of "novia", but not about this complex. so I don’t think that 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 the military blocks of intercontinental missiles.
  33. lvov_aleksey 1 February 2020 23: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    if I repeat even:
    star-striped stupid people
  34. lvov_aleksey 1 February 2020 23: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Old26
    Quote: BoA KAA
    Objective is. KAZ system "Mozyr", maybe they 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 rate of fire of striking from 1,5 to 1,8 km / s. Accuracy, we must pay tribute is very high. A convergence of the beam of these striking elements was achieved at a certain range (in tests it was 1-2 km. The target detection range is 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 about this is not heard. Over the years, they heard about the heap of "novia", but not about this complex. so I don’t think that 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 the military blocks 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.