RS-28 “Sarmat” - a real blow to pride for a potential adversary


In 2021, serial deliveries of Sarmat missiles to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will begin. This was stated by Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Alexei Krivoruchko.


Recall that the RS-28 Sarmat is the latest intercontinental ballistic missile. The firing range of the rocket is 18 thousand kilometers, the launch weight is 208,1 tons, and the payload mass is more than 10 tons. The development of “Sarmat” began in 2011, in connection with the desire to replace the strategic missile RS-20V “Voivoda” - the very one that in the US and NATO was nicknamed “Satan”.

In December 2019, the commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel General Sergei Karakaev, reported that the 62nd Uzhur missile red banner division was already preparing to adopt the latest Sarmat missiles. The combat potential of the Strategic Missile Forces after putting a new missile into service will increase many times over. At present, the missile’s missile tests have already been completed at the cosmodrome in Plesetsk, so there’s very little to wait until its serial deliveries to the troops.

“Sarmat” is a real blow to self-esteem for our potential adversary. The latest intercontinental ballistic missile will be able to attack targets over thousands of kilometers, including through the North and South poles. The probable enemy’s missile defense systems are not too large an obstacle for Sarmat, given the specifics of missile delivery along trajectories that significantly impede the enemy’s missile defense.


Mark Episkopos, a columnist for The National Interest, called the Sarmat missile the most prominent of all Russian strategic weapons. According to the expert, the missile is designed to destroy nuclear warfare. That is, in the event of a conflict, Russia will hit the Sarmatians across the US, with the goal of destroying the missile launchers of American missiles.

The consequences of using Sarmat will be disastrous for a likely adversary. Since the RS-28 ICBM can deliver up to 7,5 nuclear megatons, as a result of a single missile strike on American territory, 35-37 million American citizens can die. It turns out that only 10 Sarmat missiles are enough to destroy the entire United States. This is well understood in Washington, and therefore refers to the new missile with great caution.


The Chinese edition of Sina also highly praises the new intercontinental ballistic missile. The authors of the publication emphasize that 16 warheads are capable of completely destroying the entire infrastructure on a vast territory the size of France or, for example, the US state of Texas. One can imagine the full extent of destruction in the event of such a missile strike.

With the advent of Sarmat, the combat readiness and defense of Russia changes significantly: nuclear deterrence forces are strengthened. In conditions when Moscow has such a powerful weapons, the use of which can cause enormous damage to the United States, it is better to refrain from direct armed conflict with Russia.


Even if the American armed forces have superiority in aircraft carriers, in some other weapons, this does not mean that the United States will be able to protect itself from Russian intercontinental missiles. Of course, now the American defense industry is also working to further improve its missile defense systems, but so far, Sarmat remains virtually invulnerable to the American missile defense system.

Perhaps this circumstance will make the American leadership think about its aggressive policy towards Russia and other states of the modern world. To some extent, the deadly Sarmat is at the same time a tool for preserving world peace. As long as our country has such weapons, the American leadership will not dare to open armed confrontation with Russia. This is the main political significance of Sarmat.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. aybolyt678 4 February 2020 11: 36 New
    • 16
    • 37
    -21
    a real blow to self-esteem would be a competitive Russian smartphone, and missiles are familiar to them ...
    1. St Petrov 4 February 2020 11: 43 New
      • 13
      • 5
      +8
      so that there is a competitive smartphone produced by the Russian Federation - you need to invest billions of $ - and lose about the same.

      You need to start with the development of rare earths. Then, through trial and error, to try to make a competitive product - but since there is less experience with this than in tank building, it’s not a fact of what happens.

      PS The Saudis have invested billions (more precisely BILLIONS) with the dream of creating their own electronic industry - they have lowered the loot into the pipe. And for them the whole market is open (without sanctions).
      1. Invoce 4 February 2020 12: 45 New
        • 10
        • 1
        +9
        Quote: c-Petrov
        so that there is a competitive smartphone produced by the Russian Federation - you need to invest billions of $ - and lose about the same.

        You need to start with the development of rare earths. Then, through trial and error, to try to make a competitive product - but since there is less experience with this than in tank building, it’s not a fact of what happens.

        PS The Saudis have invested billions (more precisely BILLIONS) with the dream of creating their own electronic industry - they have lowered the loot into the pipe. And for them the whole market is open (without sanctions).

        The fact is that investing in industry is not a panacea. It is necessary to invest in the education and training of specialists. America is sucking out, like a vacuum cleaner, trained personnel from developing countries due to the fact that it can and prints its main exported product - $ .... As long as $ drives the financial markets - the competition of other countries in the production of consumer goods will be in question and their goods will be not competitive, due to the artificial reduction in the cost of goods and the possibility of introducing restrictive measures for all who compete with mattresses
      2. Shteffan 4 February 2020 13: 51 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        The Saudis do not have and will not have an EDUCATED TALENTING WHITE POPULATION. BUTTERFLIES ARE ONLY HALF, we need frames that decide everything ....
        1. Harry.km 4 February 2020 14: 22 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Steffan
          The Saudis do not have and will not have an EDUCATED TALENTING WHITE POPULATION


          As if such a fate did not overtake other countries not related to the Arabian population ....
      3. Rostislav Prokopenko 4 February 2020 14: 26 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The market has long been divided. If the Saudis were not allowed there, then in order to get through, we just need some fantastic advantage in technology. Maybe the battery capacity is 10 times more with the same sizes ... It is necessary to look through the "Science and Life". Something can be found there in the "Little Tricks" section wink laughing
        1. AnpeL 4 February 2020 20: 00 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          It can do just at the level and score the domestic market. This will not be weak already, if at least half of the consumers within Russia choose a domestic product, there’s just a little confidence even in this ...
    2. Vladimir_2U 4 February 2020 11: 47 New
      • 12
      • 7
      +5
      Something Chinese Korean smartphones did not hit American pride hard.
      1. BARKAS 4 February 2020 12: 00 New
        • 8
        • 2
        +6
        Something Chinese Korean smartphones did not hit American pride hard.

        Actually, it’s very strong even as an example of huavei and sanctions.
        1. Vladimir_2U 4 February 2020 12: 03 New
          • 8
          • 2
          +6
          There are not so much about smartphones, but about all kinds of network equipment, EMNIP.
          1. BARKAS 4 February 2020 12: 21 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            how much about any network equipment,

            Without which, everything else is just a piece of iron and plastic.
      2. Inspector 4 February 2020 12: 40 New
        • 10
        • 1
        +9
        The Korean smartphone was on its knees. Because without rockets. But slaves the main thing smartphones ...
      3. aybolyt678 4 February 2020 14: 33 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Something Chinese Korean smartphones did not hit American pride hard.

        and yet hit, remember Trump's motto: - "make America great again"
    3. max702 4 February 2020 12: 31 New
      • 4
      • 11
      -7
      After adopting this model, the question arises, why do we need a nuclear triad? Is the potential of the Strategic Missile Forces and the Airborne Forces not enough for our partners not to want to destroy us with a direct strike? As stated, 10 missiles are enough .. Well, let's put on duty 30 .. plus the Yars mobile missile systems and a flexible version of the use of nuclear weapons VKS .. Why are we extremely expensive and not very reliable (very vulnerable) naval component of the strategic nuclear forces? Moreover, it should be understood that if in the Strategic Missile Forces and the VKS there is less and less time and quality potential itself, then the horse did not wallow in the Navy. In addition to the units themselves, infrastructure is needed that would cost no more than an effective fleet in this matter, otherwise we will repeat the error of the USSR and destroy precious ships. So the question arises, but for what? The destruction of the enemy, we can guarantee other methods are much less costly ..
      1. Ezekiel 25-17 4 February 2020 12: 41 New
        • 9
        • 2
        +7
        Quote: max702
        After adopting this model, the question arises, why do we need a nuclear triad? Is the potential of the Strategic Missile Forces and the Airborne Forces not enough for our partners not to want to destroy us with a direct strike? As stated, 10 missiles are enough .. Well, let's put on duty 30 .. plus the Yars mobile missile systems and a flexible version of the use of nuclear weapons VKS .. Why are we extremely expensive and not very reliable (very vulnerable) naval component of the strategic nuclear forces? Moreover, it should be understood that if in the Strategic Missile Forces and the VKS there is less and less time and quality potential itself, then the horse did not wallow in the Navy. In addition to the units themselves, infrastructure is needed that would cost no more than an effective fleet in this matter, otherwise we will repeat the error of the USSR and destroy precious ships. So the question arises, but for what? The destruction of the enemy, we can guarantee other methods are much less costly ..

        Then, that keeping eggs in one basket is contraindicated; may break. Ideally, you need the Sarmatians, Yars, Barguzins, Boreas and ADD.
        1. max702 4 February 2020 13: 33 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Let's look at things honestly and really .. The eggs in the Navy’s basket are much more realistic and easier to break than in the Strategic Missile Forces’s basket. We can organize a dozen more “baskets” just as reliably! Why do we need this basket if it is of little use, and the probability of destruction is extremely high and at the same time it is the most expensive in the strategic nuclear forces? The resources are not endless! In our yard, capitalism is therefore lobbying for certain forces in the direction of certain decisions is present in full growth! I understand that the shipbuilding industry is one of the most important and it is necessary to raise it after the holy 90s .. BUT! We have a lot of civilian orders that we have to place abroad, in addition there is a need for warships which have little to do with strategic nuclear forces, therefore shipbuilding has something to do without a strategic component, and in principle it is clear that this piece of cake is the most delicious for industrialists as a means to ask for any strategic security of the country! These are not some kind of supply vehicles (which are needed as air) or PLO / PVO ships here, you can disperse like that and don’t worry about mucking money! Therefore, I believe that spending money on this component is not rational! I don’t need it, it’s become obsolete like cavalry, armadillos and the Macedonian phalanx. I think that they will give an example of the USA like they have silos, fleets and air force carriers of nuclear weapons, but the situation is different! The Navy and the Air Force are the main forceful decisions of their policy based on a suitable geographic and political position .. They don’t need to be wise with the fleet, everything was invented and mastered a long time ago and all this is plus excellent geography .. We have a complete and minus geography in this area ..
          1. chenia 4 February 2020 17: 36 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: max702
            The “eggs” in the Navy’s basket are much more realistic and easier to break than in the Strategic Missile Forces’s basket.


            Yes. But they will have to be beaten earlier. And then the rumors will go. And when you get to hit the RVNS basket. the basket will be empty. And eggs as souvenirs will be distributed throughout America in a megaton version.
            1. max702 4 February 2020 18: 05 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: chenia
              Quote: max702
              The “eggs” in the Navy’s basket are much more realistic and easier to break than in the Strategic Missile Forces’s basket.


              Yes. But they will have to be beaten earlier. And then the rumors will go. And when you get to hit the RVNS basket. the basket will be empty. And eggs as souvenirs will be distributed throughout America in a megaton version.

              The reaction time of the silo of the Strategic Missile Forces is several minutes, and it is they that are the restraining factor in relation to the strike on us .. They will not have time to destroy them anyway! Missiles will leave much earlier ..
              1. bayard 5 February 2020 04: 01 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                With all the logic of your conclusions, no one will refuse from SSBNs, if only because all new nuclear submarines are already being completed or on the slipways.
                Another thing is that with the adoption of the Sarmat, it is possible to shift the emphasis and, for example, limit itself to eight Boreas-A, and build the rest (at least 4, but better than 6) as carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic - 7 each . in each launch cup. These Kyrgyz Republics may / should become Caliber-M (range 4500 km.) And Zircon. Each such "Borey-K" will be able to carry 112 KR. Such submarines-arsenals could be included in the KUG, while at the same time providing combat stability in the PLO - torpedoes and hulls are quite good. And in terms of striking power they will be equal to two “Arly-Burks” each (in terms of the number of ballistic missiles), but here the quality of its RC will be much higher.
                In addition, the adoption of the Boreev-K as an attack multipurpose (!) Submarine will be able to remove the itching to turn the Ashen-M into monsters with a displacement like Ohio, at the cost of two Boreas and an arsenal of 40 KR in UVP. The Navy needs large MAPL series in moderate (!) Displacement and harmonious missile and torpedo armaments, some kind of new "Pike-B". And they can launch missiles through TA.
                I am writing this because there are rumors that, after the completion of the Ash-M series, the future Husky \ Likes are again designed with monstrous bulks with KR batteries with a displacement of no less than Ash-M and a price tag like that of an average aircraft carrier.
                Such disgrace cannot be allowed.
                It is necessary to separate the functions and strike submarines from the KR to build on the basis of the Borea, and the MAPL itself, as the successors of the magnificent Pike-B. Of course, at a new technical level.
                1. max702 5 February 2020 12: 05 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  But I categorically agree with this! "Boreas" as carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic (especially if they finish the Zircon) will be much more necessary for the fleet than in the role of the SSBN! For one simple reason, the SSBNs will never be put into practice, but the strike functions of cruise missiles may well be involved especially in the light of successes in rocket science ..
                  1. ccsr 5 February 2020 12: 25 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: max702
                    but the strike functions of cruise missiles may well be involved especially in the light of successes in rocket science ..

                    For cruise missiles, submarines are generally a wasteful thing, and not necessary, because surface ships or long-range aircraft can do this task much better and for less money.
                    1. max702 5 February 2020 14: 24 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      The problem is the specifics of our country, we do not have ground bases around the world, therefore a surface ship is either nuclear or nobody will refuel it, plus it’s very easy to track it, aviation is certainly good, but again the distances ... But to some extent I agree with you and she will be able to replace the strike fleet, it’s just that the nuclear submarine really can (in addition to the striking qualities of a large ammunition load) operate relatively stealthily in any corner of the world’s oceans, and a long arm in the form of a missile defense system will not give a damn about all the prohibitions of some states, plus the considerable costs of PLO "partners" .. But from this point of view, nuclear submarines are less justified, and carrying around the SSBN oceans from which it’s useless to use it will never be much more stupid ..
                      1. ccsr 5 February 2020 19: 41 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: max702
                        But from this point of view, nuclear submarines are less justified, and carrying the SSBN from the oceans from which it’s useless to use it will never be much more stupid ..

                        We will be able to judge this when we find out how quickly the anti-submarine forces of the United States can detect and destroy our SSBNs. If they are not able to do this within a dozen minutes or a little more, then our submariners will have time to complete the task.
                    2. bayard 5 February 2020 15: 34 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: ccsr
                      For cruise missiles, submarines are actually a wasteful, and unnecessary thing

                      What are you saying?
                      112 KR on one underwater carrier wasteful? Yes, one of her volleys with special heads all along the coast - east or west will be carried by the adversary.
                      From the heart of the ocean.
                      And how many surface carriers do you need to pull such an arsenal? And how do they move unnoticed?
                      And how much will these media cost?
                      Quote: ccsr
                      long-range aircraft will cope with this task much better and for less money.

                      How many airplanes do we have?
                      Long-range aviation?
                      How much does one carry on board?
                      Tu-160 carries 12 pcs.
                      How much does it cost ?
                      250 million dollars
                      We multiply by 10 (aircraft) = 2 500 000 000 dollars. USA
                      What do you think, how many "Northwind alone costs?
                      I am sure that less.
                      And on duty in the area may be several months.
                      And if there will be Zircons in the ammunition?
                      One such submarine cruiser of the whole fleet will cost.
                      American. bully
                      1. ccsr 5 February 2020 19: 34 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: bayard
                        What are you saying?
                        112 KR on one underwater carrier wasteful?

                        They can be placed on two small-tonnage ships, and it will be cheaper.
                        But this is not the point, but the fact that we cannot be 99% certain that our submarine will not be destroyed before it receives a combat command signal. Even if everything goes well, and our boat launches 1000 miles off the coast of the United States, during the flight, the Americans will have time to release their entire strategic nuclear forces stockpile and take measures to destroy relatively slow cruise missiles. That is why the idea of ​​deploying missile launchers in submarines is very doubtful from the point of view of delivering a lightning strike on the territory of the United States - we only unmask ourselves in this case.
                        Quote: bayard
                        From the heart of the ocean.

                        Calculate the flight time first.
                        Quote: bayard
                        And how many surface carriers do you need to pull such an arsenal? And how do they move unnoticed?

                        And no one will push them - they will be used for local wars, striking from our territorial waters or from neutral in the near zone.
                        Quote: bayard
                        We multiply by 10 (aircraft) = 2 500 000 000 dollars. USA
                        What do you think, how many "Northwind alone costs?
                        I am sure that less.

                        Approximately so much and it costs, well, maybe a little less, but the fact that a couple of billion dollars is for sure.
                        By the way, Tu-95 planes for patrolling are cheaper, and no one is going to launch 10 units each, because this is a unmasking sign.
                        Quote: bayard
                        One such submarine cruiser of the whole fleet will cost.

                        I have no doubt, as well as the fact that they will try to destroy it before the start of hostilities.
                      2. bayard 6 February 2020 04: 11 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Quote: bayard
                        What are you saying?
                        112 KR on one underwater carrier wasteful?

                        They can be placed on two small-tonnage ships, and it will be cheaper.

                        Well, let's count.
                        Take for example the promising frigate-destroyer 22350M (displacement of about 8000 tons).
                        48 KR in UKKS.
                        Of these, 8 submarines are rocket torpedoes.
                        Another about 8 - 12 anti-ship missiles.
                        For a strike against stationary targets, 28 - 32 KR "Caliber-M" or "Zircon" remains (in the strike version "along the coast").
                        It turns out that such ships must have 3 for a commensurate "Borea-K" salvo.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        But this is not the point, but the fact that we cannot be 99% certain that our submarine will not be destroyed before it receives a combat command signal.

                        This is if it will be alone and in autonomous navigation, but it can be part of the KMG, in which surface ships will provide combat stability from aviation, and the nuclear submarine, in turn, will support the PLO.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Even if everything goes well, and our boat launches 1000 miles off the coast of the United States, during the flight, the Americans will have time to release their entire strategic nuclear forces stockpile and take measures to destroy relatively slow cruise missiles.

                        It depends on what kind of missiles we have in mind. If "Caliber-M", then yes - they are subsonic and will fly for a long time. But in the first echelon “Zircons” will go from their 9 - 10 M, and this is already a few minutes from the start. And they will primarily hit the radar missile defense missile defense \ air defense, naval warfare, airfields, KP - the highest priority targets. And the second echelon will go subsonic KR, which will already deal with everything else.
                        Moreover, in the case of such a scenario (global nuclear conflict), by the time of their approach to the target, ICBMs from the continent will already be working on enemy territory. The subsonic missiles we are considering will provide for massiveness and detail of the defeat of targets on the enemy’s territory, as well as for its military bases around the world (which will be much simpler, because air defense / missile defense at overseas bases is much thinner).
                        Quote: ccsr
                        That is why the idea of ​​deploying missile launchers in submarines is very doubtful from the point of view of delivering a lightning strike on the territory of the United States - we only unmask ourselves in this case.

                        One can speak of lightning speed and the inevitability of a strike only in the event of a strike of the Zircon from a dagger distance at the enemy’s military infrastructure, say from 500 - 600 km. from their shore. But it will be just a lightning-fast, inevitable and disarming strike, after which longer-range subsonic missiles will flood into the gap.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        From the heart of the ocean.

                        Calculate the flight time first.

                        From the heart of the ocean can shoot "Borey-K" KR "Caliber-M", with their range of 4500 km. this is completely acceptable. And this may be the second / third echelon of the strike, when the enemy is already blinded and disoriented.
                        The first - a disarming strike should be applied from a dagger distance. In our case, it is 500 - 600 km. from the enemy shore.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        And how many surface carriers do you need to pull such an arsenal? And how do they move unnoticed?

                        And no one will push them - they will be used for local wars, striking from our territorial waters or from neutral in the near zone.

                        For local wars, in which the CD of the DB is not a pity, such underwater arsenals will also be very useful - one full salvo of the Kyrgyz Republic with ordinary heads can disable the 2nd / 3rd echelon country.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Quote: bayard
                        We multiply by 10 (aircraft) = 2 500 000 000 dollars. USA
                        What do you think, how many "Northwind alone costs?
                        I am sure that less.

                        Approximately so much and it costs, well, maybe a little less, but the fact that a couple of billion dollars is for sure.

                        And now about the most sensitive and tender - about money.
                        The cost of Borea (pr. 955) amounted to 23 billion rubles. or 433 million dollars I suppose that the cost of Borea-A and therefore Borea-K will be higher and amount to approximately 650 - 800 million dollars.
                        As you have already noticed, this is much less than your estimated 2 billion dollars. , or 2,5 billion dollars. - the price of a dozen Tu-160M ​​\ M2.
                        Less than 3 to 4 times.
                        It seems to me that this is good arithmetic for the type of weaponry under capitalism.
                        Moreover, as before, and even more so now, no one is fighting alone - systems are fighting. Therefore, all available means for the war and victory in it must be available. And if the new proposed model / weapon system allows you to solve the same problems 3-4 times cheaper way (or tool), then this is a good thing - you have to take it.
                        And again about the money.
                        23 billion rubles was worth it. Northwind
                        those. 433 million dollars
                        The frigate 22350 Gorshkov cost 27-28 billion rubles.
                        Based on this, I will assume that the Borey-K will cost no more than the 22350M frigate-destroyer.
                        In my opinion a very good economy is drawn to us.
                        What do you think ?
                        And these figures are not taken from the ceiling (the prices of Borea and Gorshkov), they are official.
                        Therefore, I believe that in order to dramatically increase the fleet’s strike capabilities, it’s not just desirable, but it is necessary to build a series of 6 Borey-K submarines, even to the detriment of the total number of Boreev-A (limited to a series of 8 pieces). But at the same time, put as much effort and resources as possible into the speedy buildup of MAPL forces in moderate displacement to resolve the issue of the combat stability of our fleet in the fight against the enemy’s MAPL as soon as possible. To complete the laid series of "Ash-M" with their own niche of application, and to lay a wide series of MAPLs of the class "updated Pike-B". Of course, at a new technical level. Those. to build not monsters ("Ash-M", "Husky-Laika" with a displacement of 13 - 000 tons), but underwater hunters and fighters of VI 14 - 000 kt
                        The fleet, like all the Armed Forces, must be balanced, rational and with its composition maximally correspond to the tasks facing it.
                        hi bully
                      3. ccsr 6 February 2020 17: 22 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: bayard
                        Well, let's count.

                        First determine the price, and then we will calculate. Let me remind you that in Soviet times, our Typhoon cost about 1,5 billion Soviet rubles, the most sophisticated missile cruiser cost 700-800 million rubles, and destroyers cost 200-400 million rubles. I think the proportions of cost and now are such, so you can figure out what it costs one submarine - even without taking into account operating costs, but given the fact that missile weapons sharply decreased in price.
                        Quote: bayard
                        And the second echelon will go subsonic KR, which will already deal with everything else.

                        No need to fantasize - everything will end in one blow, and it's time to at least learn it. That's why it should be as fast and powerful as possible, and cruise missiles are not suitable for this.
                        Quote: bayard
                        For local wars, in which the KR database is not a pity, such underwater arsenals will also be very useful

                        Why, if aviation or a surface fleet can be used?
                        Quote: bayard
                        Therefore, I believe that for a sharp increase in the strike capabilities of the fleet, it’s not just desirable, but it is necessary to build a series of 6 submarines of the Borey-K type,

                        Let's leave the armament program for those who are supposed to deal with it, because they know what requirements the highest military leadership of the country imposes on them. Your and my fortune-telling is hardly backed up even by the knowledge of what role these submarines will play in the future in our strategic nuclear forces.
                      4. bayard 6 February 2020 23: 32 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        First determine the price, and then we will calculate. Let me remind you that in Soviet times, our Typhoon cost about 1,5 billion Soviet rubles, the most sophisticated missile cruiser cost 700-800 million rubles, and destroyers cost 200-400 million rubles. I think the proportions of value and now are,

                        You think so, and I brought the prices of the lead ships 22350 "Pots" and 955 "Borey", 27 - 28 billion rubles. and 23 billion rubles, respectively. These are official prices and have been published many times. And they are much fresher than those you brought (even in Soviet rubles).
                        So we just decided on the price - the modern Borey is approximately equal in price to the modern frigate 22350M (we take it with a margin). Why is this so? And you consider that only one air defense system ship costs. The nuclear submarines have neither air defense, nor electronic warfare, nor helicopter artillery. But there is a HOOK. But he also has a surface ship. So at the prices - parity. And in shock weapons a multiple advantage over the Borey-K.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        No need to fantasize - everything will end in one blow, and it's time to at least learn it. That's why it should be as fast and powerful as possible, and cruise missiles are not suitable for this.

                        Even during the great and mighty USSR in its heyday, no one in the General Staff expected to solve the war with one blow. There was a survival rate of enemy strategic nuclear forces. With a high probability, part of the SSBNs survived - those on duty. Part of the land-based ICBMs that did not participate in the first strike were mobile missile systems (the Midjitman and the MX mobile version worked hard on those then in the USA). And we worked on such systems. They worked until the last day of the Union, and even after its death ... continued for some time. The same ICBM Molodets of the Pavlograd assembly was based not only on the BZHRK, but had an option of underground mobile basing - cruised along the ring railway in the tunnel, with 10 launch mines for each such ICBM. The position area was near Novomoskovsk, Dnipropetrovsk region. It’s hard to imagine grandiose constructions and the price of such rockets, about 40 units were based there.
                        And we had a lot of similar systems. And these systems are the weapons of the SECOND PUNCH. The “Voivode” and “Stilettos” were supposed to participate in the first \ reciprocal, and the “Well done”, “Couriers”, “Typhoons”, “Sineva”, etc. - weapons of the SECOND strike exclusively. After further exploration of the results of the first strike - on healed targets.
                        The war, for which the General Staff was preparing, had to be stubborn, total and extended in time for at least several months.
                        And not your horror stories - with one blow, ALL, and in the cemetery.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Why, if aviation or a surface fleet can be used?

                        The forces thereof are limited, it is difficult to use forces without use as a demonstrator. In addition, we may not need a salvo of a hundred missiles but, say, several hundred, then we can attract long-range aviation and all possible surface carriers, well, Borei-K, where would it be without such matters.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Your and my fortune-telling is hardly backed up even by the knowledge of what role these submarines will play in the future in our strategic nuclear forces.

                        This is not fortunetelling, but the declared / declared program for the construction of such ships by the Minister of Defense of Russia Shoigu. Namely, that after laying the last of Borey-A, two Borey-Ks will be laid with the option of building two more. And I just assumed that it would be irrational to limit ourselves to 4 such ships, it would be more reasonable to build 6 - 3 for each fleet. Based on:
                        - alone on a hike
                        - one in the database
                        - one in repair.
                        That's all. wink
                        Sometimes it’s enough to keep track of the issue on open sources to keep abreast. So I didn’t open any secrets and did not break any secrets. hi bully
                      5. ccsr 7 February 2020 13: 30 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Quote: bayard
                        You think so, and I brought the prices of the lead ships 22350 "Pots" and 955 "Borey", 27 - 28 billion rubles. and 23 billion rubles, respectively. These are official prices and have been published many times.

                        Do not tell me - you don’t even have an idea how much the cost of a Kalashnikov assault rifle costs us, but you already believe in everything that is published. The prices quoted do not take into account the cost of R&D and the quantity in the series, in order to really understand what this or that product cost us for the entire time of operation.
                        Quote: bayard
                        Even during the great and mighty USSR in its heyday, no one in the General Staff expected to solve the war with one blow.

                        Have you ever stood on the threshold of the Soviet General Staff to say such things?
                        Quote: bayard
                        And I just assumed that it would be irrational to limit ourselves to 4 such ships, it would be more reasonable to build 6 - 3 for each fleet. Based on:
                        - alone on a hike
                        - one in the database
                        - one in repair.
                        That's all.

                        And if I say that to increase the likelihood of survival in the pre-war period, on duty you need to have at least two submarines on each theater of war, what can you refute that it will take not 6, but 12 submarines? And even better 24 - then certainly one of the four will produce a full salvo. And it is much closer to reality than you think.
                        Quote: bayard
                        Sometimes it’s enough to keep track of the issue on open sources to keep abreast.

                        I wish you success, but sometimes it's better to listen to professionals, even former ones - they understand this more.
                      6. bayard 7 February 2020 15: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Do not tell me - you don’t even have an idea how much the cost of a Kalashnikov assault rifle costs us, but you already believe in everything that is published.

                        Quote: ccsr
                        Have you ever stood on the threshold of the Soviet General Staff to say such things?

                        Quote: ccsr
                        sometimes it's better to listen to professionals, even former ones - they understand this more.

                        Perhaps I will disappoint you, but you are currently communicating with one of these specialists.
                        Yes, it’s from the former.
                        I am a former officer in the combat control of an air defense unit.
                        THE USSR .
                        What is the RIC, I hope you heard, since you are a specialist. Especially - the former.
                        He did not serve in the General Staff, but had a chance to communicate. Including with graduates of his Academy. But more - with the Headquarters of the Southern Group of Forces. I have a good friend at RIC Betting.
                        And sometimes I write on naval topics, because my friend took part in the military council of the Pacific Fleet. By combat interaction, but quite regularly.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        And if I say that to increase the likelihood of survival in the pre-war period, on duty you need to have at least two submarines on each theater of war, what can you refute that it will take not 6, but 12 submarines? And even better 24 - then certainly one of the four will produce a full salvo. And it is much closer to reality than you think.

                        If you tell me this, then I will smile and answer that during the threatened period all the ships available in the base will be launched into the sea. Except for those under repair. So to support normal combat readiness for 3 submarines of the Borey-K type, the fleet will be quite enough.
                        And believe me, on the word, I well imagine how the price of a combat unit develops. What is R&D and what is the cost of the industry? Starting a new model is also not bad for me.
                        And how the price depends on inflation smile
                        Because I also did business.
                        And not only .

                        But I somehow did not see your qualifications. I can also ulce ... but it's better not to try this with me.
                        What area are you in in the sun? In what field? What kind of troops?
                      7. ccsr 7 February 2020 18: 45 New
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        +2
                        Quote: bayard
                        If you tell me this, then I will smile and answer that during the threatened period all the ships available in the base will be launched into the sea.

                        The very concept of “threatened period” even in Soviet times encompassed the interval from several days to several hours. For a couple of hours you just do not have time to put all the ships into the sea.
                        Quote: bayard
                        What is R&D and what is the cost of the industry? Starting a new model is also not bad for me.

                        Judging by your position in the CA, you are unlikely to have any idea about this, because did not serve in the ordering structure of air defense and were not involved in these activities.
                        Quote: bayard
                        But I somehow did not see your qualifications.

                        Let's just say that it is specific, and moreover, in terms of level, it was higher than yours, based on what you reported about yourself.
                        Quote: bayard
                        What area are you in in the sun? In what field? What kind of troops?

                        He served at the GSVG headquarters for almost five years - is that enough?
                      8. bayard 8 February 2020 02: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr

                        The very concept of “threatened period” even in Soviet times encompassed the interval from several days to several hours. For a couple of hours you just do not have time to put all the ships into the sea.

                        But nevertheless, in the spring of 2015, this had to be done when a black woman from the NSA broke into the Russian embassy in the United States with the information that ... the United States and Britain are preparing to launch a surprise strike with all the forces of the strategic nuclear forces ... and we still have a contour The SPRN wasn’t closed ... they could even yawn ... That's when everything (Fleet) had to be hastily deployed - the classic "Threatened Period". Then it turned out. I’m still smiling at Obama’s excuse for his disappearance in a couple of days - about the emergency exercises and the “giant tidal waves” ready to wash off the US coastal zone ... After that, the leak about ... Poseidon was organized ... although the first leak was not about torpedoes at all ... when the waves started talking ...
                        So, life will make you "not so heated" (Features of the national hunt). And all that you can - deploy.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Judging by your position in the CA, you are unlikely to have any idea about this, because did not serve in the ordering structure of air defense and were not involved in these activities.

                        It was in another life, and no longer in air defense.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Let's just say that it is specific, and moreover, in terms of level, it was higher than yours, based on what you reported about yourself.

                        Quote: ccsr
                        He served at the GSVG headquarters for almost five years - is that enough?

                        hi Quite.
                        So I’m younger, because at the RIC I completely served as a young officer. Then there was a completely different life. But no less interesting.
                      9. ccsr 8 February 2020 10: 36 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: bayard
                        when a black woman from the NSA broke into the Russian embassy in the United States with materials stating that ... the United States and Britain are preparing to launch a surprise strike with all the forces of the strategic nuclear forces

                        In all embassies in such cases, the main thing is considered to be the ability to carry out these crazy people without scandal, so as not to harm the reputation of the embassy. Believe me - this is precisely the main task, and not to listen to the nonsense of all the insane.
                        Quote: bayard
                        It was in another life, and no longer in air defense.

                        And I had in that life - it happened, and I know what I'm talking about.
                      10. bayard 8 February 2020 14: 36 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        In all embassies in such cases, the main thing is considered to be the ability to carry out these crazy people without scandal, so as not to harm the reputation of the embassy. Believe me - this is precisely the main task, and not to listen to the nonsense of all the insane.

                        This is true, but not about all such crazy people a dosed information leakage is organized in combination with the deployment of all the forces of the fleet. And bringing the Strategic Missile Forces on high alert.
                        We in Donbass at that moment also very interesting events took place ... But all the dangers were stopped and the agreed plans were frustrated.
                        ... This is from the latest.
                        And I also had to communicate with diplomats and military attaches, there were different cases there.
  • ccsr 4 February 2020 19: 02 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: max702
    Let's look at things honestly and really .. The eggs in the Navy’s basket are much more realistic and easier to break than in the Strategic Missile Forces’s basket.

    To begin with, it would not hurt you to understand that only submarines of the Navy allow us to reduce the time of approaching warheads to the United States, moreover, as the Strategic Missile Forces did not even dream. And this will be more and more relevant with every decade, as Americans improve their missile defense systems - believe me, they will do this. So we will have to invest more and more funds in the submarine fleet - this is the dialectic of the development of weapons for our country, while the United States will be our main adversary. If the United States does not pose a threat to us for various reasons, then naturally we can then begin to reduce its submarine fleet.
    1. max702 4 February 2020 19: 19 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: ccsr
      To begin with, it would not hurt you to understand that only submarines of the Navy allow us to reduce the time of approaching warheads to the United States, moreover, as the Strategic Missile Forces did not even dream. And this will be more and more relevant with every decade, as Americans improve their missile defense systems.

      Even today, flying time doesn’t matter if it’s not cruise missiles, the main danger is the acceleration section, it is the easiest place to shoot missiles on it, and something tells me that our boats will be under the gun all the time and, as you know, ships from the USA just sharpen on They will then take off missile defense missiles from the SSBNs and more likely to cover, there are not so many sites from which it is possible to launch successfully, but silos will be fired and no one will launch missiles at the upper stage because the nearest missile defense will be in thousands km .. After launching the strategic nuclear forces, even on one side civilization on planet earth will end. If two sides shoot back then life is possible ..
      1. ccsr 4 February 2020 20: 09 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: max702
        Even today, flying time doesn’t matter if it’s not cruise missiles,

        Right-wing time is now the main parameter, because this is the only way to deliver a preemptive strike in such a short time that the enemy will not be able to prepare for a retaliatory strike. In such a situation, the attacker will have a better chance of not receiving unacceptable losses, which means that he leaves them hope to get rid of small losses when destroying the geostrategic enemy.
        Quote: max702
        After the launch of the strategic nuclear forces, even on one side, civilization on the planet earth will end.

        This is a moot point, because part of the population who find themselves in unaffected territory can survive.
        But this is not even the point, but the fact that by reducing our flight time we will force the Americans to either negotiate with us or refuse to deploy our missile defense systems in Europe.
        1. max702 4 February 2020 20: 21 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: ccsr
          This is a moot point, because part of the population who find themselves in unaffected territory can survive.

          Ndaa? And with the ruins of nuclear reactors, what will you do? For example, we have 38 of them .. ONE collapsed in Chernobyl, and if it weren’t for a mighty country at the peak of opportunities in 86 g, life in Europe would be a big question now. There’s enough consequences for everyone on the other side of the ocean, you won’t sit out, green grass after the big Arctic fox films .. But I took into account that 100% of all the potential of nuclear weapons is obviously not possible, and there will be some kind of answer, but there will be no acceptable losses .. Yes, one must also think that the same China will obviously not stand aside in environmental terms we will get plus understanding that he is next second, so that in this game will not play alone .. .. Everyone Khan
          1. ccsr 4 February 2020 20: 40 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: max702
            Ndaa? And with the ruins of nuclear reactors, what will you do?

            The same as with Chernobyl - to deactivate those who survive by forces, of course, of course.
            Quote: max702
            There are enough consequences for everyone on the other side of the ocean

            It is still unknown what the situation will be when one country will destroy the enemy’s nuclear potential faster than it will be used.
            Quote: max702
            No acceptable losses ..

            There are acceptable losses that are calculated theoretically when they decide to deploy missile defense systems.
            Quote: max702
            Yes, we must also think that the same China will clearly stand aside, it will obviously not get it from us in terms of ecology, plus the understanding that it is next,

            To begin with, let us separate our main threat from the secondary ones, because China is still not the main threat to us.
            Quote: max702
            Khan to everyone ..

            I think so too, which is why I believe that there are smart people among the American leadership who also understand this.
            1. max702 4 February 2020 20: 51 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              Quote: ccsr
              The same as with Chernobyl - to deactivate those who survive by forces, of course, of course.

              Are you so kidding? Chernobyl was extinguished by forces from all over the country, I remember very well how it was just the parents of my classmates went there and a bunch of equipment from our factory of the Ministry of Medium Industry .. And there was also heroism and biorobots so they self-sacrificed prevented a global catastrophe and all this in peacetime, and here the country is in ruins everywhere fires of flooding from the destroyed hydroelectric power stations destroyed bridges, communications broken, power structures destroyed, most likely there are databases of different intensities and tell me who and how it will eliminate consequences of the destroyed 38 reactors?
              1. ccsr 5 February 2020 12: 17 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: max702
                Are you so kidding?

                Not at all, because not all of the country's population lives in a radius of 30 km from nuclear plants. And, as you know, people still live behind her, although, as far as I remember, no special decontamination activities were carried out there.

                Quote: max702
                WHO and HOW will eliminate the consequences of the destroyed 38 reactors?

                At first, no one will be at all, and in the future, those who survive will probably find safer areas for living.
              2. max702 5 February 2020 14: 45 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                You should have a smaller stalker and a fallout to play .. It is only there, after the global nuclear conflict, that there are safe areas for living .. But you didn’t talk about who will eliminate the consequences of the destruction of reactors ..
              3. Operator 5 February 2020 15: 12 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                And what do you dislike about the Arabian Peninsula for our residence (after cleansing from the Arabs, of course)?

                A mild climate with green spaces and farmland (in a nuclear winter), sun, sea, fishing, diving, free oil and gas, developed transport and urban infrastructure, etc. etc. bully
              4. max702 5 February 2020 15: 19 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                But will we live to clean the Arabs? Yes, and I’ll think everything and everything will burn there .. Although they like to consider individual horses in a vacuum, they still have to understand that after a strike of the strategic nuclear forces the world should start moving around everything ..
              5. Operator 5 February 2020 15: 25 New
                • 6
                • 2
                +4
                You already decide - a cross (we will survive, but we will lose the territory due to radioactivity) or cowards (we will not survive, but then why discuss the presence / absence of a clean territory).

                PS Arabs will be cleaned up as a “novice” after the start of TMV - otherwise they’ve completely become overgrown, you have discovered, at your place, the military bases of our main potential US adversary bully
          2. ccsr 5 February 2020 19: 21 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: max702
            It is only there, after the global nuclear conflict, that there are safe areas for living ..

            According to some experts, the consequences of the exchange of nuclear strikes may lead to a nuclear winter, but it is not yet a fact that the entire population of the Earth will die out from this. Australia, South America and New Zealand, in their opinion, are areas where life will exist.
            Quote: max702
            And about who will eliminate the consequences of the destruction of reactors you never said ..

            No one will - they will leave the zone with a radius of 40-50 kilometers and stop at that.
          3. max702 5 February 2020 21: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: ccsr
            No one will - they will leave the zone with a radius of 40-50 kilometers and stop at that.

            What? And let the ruins fonit? Dust let the wind blow around the planet, runoff kills water and a lot more if you do not eliminate the source of infection. Only liquidation requires people, equipment and materials, and with all this in the country after a massive nuclear strike there will be a total deficit .. What will happen in 3-5 years when radioactive materials disperse around the world? Where will people live? What will they eat and drink?
          4. ccsr 6 February 2020 17: 07 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: max702
            What? And let the ruins fonit? Let the wind blow the planet’s dust, runoff kills water and a lot more if you do not eliminate the source of infection.

            You probably have a poor idea that the epidemics that arose after the exchange of nuclear strikes due to the huge amount of rotting corpses of people and animals will be a great danger to those who survive.
            Quote: max702
            Where will people live? What will they eat and drink?

            They will try to get to those areas that were not subject to nuclear attacks - for example, Siberia, Chukotka in our country.
  • NEXUS 4 February 2020 19: 32 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Ezekiel 25-17
    Then, that keeping eggs in one basket is contraindicated; may break. Ideally, you need the Sarmatians, Yars, Barguzins, Boreas and ADD.

    I think that in the near future there will not be a triad, but a fourth cosmos component will be added.
    1. max702 4 February 2020 20: 26 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: NEXUS
      Quote: Ezekiel 25-17
      Then, that keeping eggs in one basket is contraindicated; may break. Ideally, you need the Sarmatians, Yars, Barguzins, Boreas and ADD.

      I think that in the near future there will not be a triad, but a fourth cosmos component will be added.

      At the expense of space, the most promising direction is completely agreed .. It is from there that the first disarming strike can be delivered. That's why I say that everything is MSN .. Expensive, long and useless! That is a criminal waste of time and money .. It’s better to spend much more space on this ..
  • Boa kaa 4 February 2020 15: 58 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: max702
    Why do we need an extremely expensive and not very reliable (very vulnerable) marine component of the strategic nuclear forces?
    Colleague, you are hopelessly behind in knowledge about the vulnerability of the SNLF. Borey-A is a very serious machine with the potential of the SSBN division. There will be 8-10 units, which is quite enough for the States to not be able to destroy all coastal targets with a sudden strike ... land-based strategic nuclear forces. Moreover, everyone was silent about the Scythians. But they exist and continue to improve ... This, too, is the MSNF! This also includes Poeydon. So do not drive in vain. Not woodpeckers are sitting in the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, but real strategists. But for some reason (unlike you) they do not swarm in such a birdhouse ...
    in the Strategic Missile Forces and the Aerospace Forces, more and more with deadlines and the very high-quality potential, the horse didn’t lie in the Navy.
    And all because 20 trillion rubles, in agreement with the leadership of the Moscow Region, were transferred to the end of the GPV until 2020. And when everything went downhill, the new leadership of the Navy was modestly silent about this (after the convincing advice of the Moscow Region — do not lean out!)
    we need infrastructure that will cost no more than an effective fleet in this matter
    And you did not ask how much silos cost with all the quirks and forces to ensure the combat stability of the OS !? Therefore, - whose cow would moo ...
    And in general, I recall the case when one of the people's commissars, reporting to the peoples' father about the new tank, said that it was very expensive, and therefore it would be better not to do it. What is I.V. Stalin replied: "And who gave you the right to count people's money when it comes to the country's defense capability !?"
    Learn from the great and wise state approach to the defense of the country!
    IMHO.
    1. max702 4 February 2020 18: 01 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The slogans are wonderful! But if we compare the silos and all the costs of the strategic nuclear forces (and this is the AUG, and the SSBNs, and the PLO aviation and the analogue of the ASL, and much more), it will become clear due to the large series of silos that are practically for nothing in comparison with the strategic nuclear forces .. And you also need to understand that The strategic nuclear forces were effective and workable, absolutely all of the above should be needed .. And even the probability of quietly destroying strategic nuclear forces on duty in the ocean is orders of magnitude higher than the same as turning from silos in the depths of the country under the cover of all types and arms of forces. Today, strategic nuclear forces are primarily lobbying project for the development of a piece of cake on the national defense and only then a strategic necessity .. alas, material interest is a very significant thing .. The article says that to destroy the United States 10 missiles are enough, let's make 30 or 50 and still each missile and silos taken together will be cheaper than any pennant necessary for the successful operation of the strategic nuclear forces ..If we are practically not vulnerable on our territory, then in the ocean the enemy confronts us an order of magnitude higher than all our human and material capabilities, therefore, giving TAM an adequate answer will be extremely costly nuclear and if at all possible .. Poseidon is good but very muddy (most likely a cunning disinfectant), and I am not against the fleet, we need submarine frigates, high-speed troop transports, minesweepers, multipurpose nuclear submarines all this will perfectly take shipbuilders and have an effect on the sea .. And here about MSNS it is necessary to forget this money down the drain!
      1. Boa kaa 4 February 2020 22: 41 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: max702
        And here about MSNS it is necessary to forget this money down the drain!

        I get the impression that you are smarter than the General Staff and the Security Council of the Russian Federation combined!
        all costs of the Nuclear Forces (and this is the AUG, and the SSBN, and the PLO aviation and the analogue of the SUOS, and much more)
        Examine the material before carrying the absurdity! For some reason, you include general forces in the strategic nuclear forces ... Then include combined-arms armies in the strategic missile forces system!
        we need PLO frigates, high-speed troop transports, minesweepers, multipurpose nuclear submarines
        Of course necessary. But how can they influence the strategic deterrence forces? But each SSBN can carry out a “staff reduction” (bury an entire staff).
        the likelihood of quietly destroying strategic nuclear forces on duty in the ocean is orders of magnitude higher than the same as cranking with silos in the depths of the country under the cover of all types and arms of service ..
        Before the boat is "quietly destroyed," it must be found in the vast Ocean, while the exact coordinates of the OS are known ... And it's time to get out of hypnosis about the continuous tracking of Americans by our SSBNs. Today, boats of the 4th generation are quiet and practically without discrete ... Finding them is extremely difficult to destroy.
        in the ocean, the enemy confronts us an order of magnitude higher than all our human and material capabilities,
        Well, at the expense of "human capabilities" - that’s enough for you. And we are gradually correcting the “material possibilities”. Not as fast as we would like, but still ... 6 submarines on slipways in varying degrees of readiness. UDC, frigates will be laid, destroyers and aircraft-carrying ships are being designed ...
        And reasoning about the “pie” and “lobbyists” - let them remain on your conscience.
        1. max702 5 February 2020 14: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: BoA KAA
          For some reason, you include general forces in the strategic nuclear forces ... Then include combined-arms armies in the strategic missile forces system!

          Well Duc and what are our aircraft carriers for what purpose? To cover the deployment of the SSBNs, namely, to destroy the airborne submarines, respectively, for the successful deployment of the SSBNs, full-fledged ASGs are necessary, otherwise the task is not feasible, then the combined-arms armies in the Strategic Missile Forces system well, in principle, yes, but they do so in any way that there is no strategic missile forces. That is, air defense, air defense of the airborne forces are necessary on their own, regardless of the presence of strategic missile forces, but you can’t say anything about the strategic nuclear forces, they need specialized protection without it, they are apparently useless and stand at the berths with at least some chance to catch fire while the same ones cover them "general forces" .. Just a little expensive it ..
          1. Boa kaa 5 February 2020 15: 32 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: max702
            full AUGs are needed otherwise the task is not feasible,

            But how did they still carry out their tasks?
            You won’t say anything about MSND. They need specialized protection without it. They are useless.
            You have a very misunderstanding of the term "specialized security." The tactics of modern rkkSN "somewhat" different from what you wrote about in your post ...
            apparently this is why they stand at the berths at least some chance to catch fire while they are covered by the same "general forces"

            Strategists are in the bases based on the schedule of combat use and carrying BS / DB. The schedule is approved by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
            Being in the base, strategists are protected by the entire security and defense system of the base station. Even the airborne forces are involved in it, not only missile defense / air defense and general forces, not to mention intelligence!
  • ccsr 4 February 2020 13: 04 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Quote: aybolyt678
    a real blow to pride would be a competitive Russian smartphone,

    It was even cooler if we began to grow coffee and bananas at our place - then you would definitely be glad for Russia ...
    1. Harry.km 4 February 2020 14: 31 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: ccsr
      It was even cooler if we started to grow coffee and bananas at home

      Enough for my joy to start selling to potential partners not gas, but polymers, and not oil, but its refined products. That would be a blow to pride. And 10 rockets will not do any weather .. a drop in the ocean.
      1. ccsr 4 February 2020 18: 54 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Harry.km
        Enough for my joy to start selling to potential partners not gas, but polymers, and not oil, but its refined products.

        You only care about hydrocarbon processing, but I also have our military industrial complex, our nuclear industry, the aerospace and several more high-tech ones. But we are not able to lead all over the world in all sectors, I hope you understand that for this we have no human resources and scientific groundwork. It’s time to understand for a long time that Russia is not the USSR, and that’s why “stretch your legs for clothes”.
        1. Harry.km 4 February 2020 19: 42 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: ccsr
          You only care about hydrocarbon processing

          Why such insinuations, where I wrote that it ONLY excites me?
          I wrote - that for starters it would be necessary to start processing and selling raw materials as products of high processing. And then, perhaps, we’ll get to all that you have voiced and fill up the world with both GLONASS satellites and nuclear reactors and smartphones ... We have a share of domestic gas and petrochemicals of 1,5% (with the prospect of growth to 2030 to 2,1%), and in developed "oil and gas" countries 5–10%. That's where the domestic smartphone is buried ...
          1. ccsr 4 February 2020 20: 16 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Harry.km
            I wrote - that for starters it would be necessary to start processing and selling raw materials as products of high processing.

            Are you sure that you will find consumers for our refined raw materials, taking into account the fact that they need crude oil, and which has an excess in the world market?
            Quote: Harry.km
            And then, perhaps, we will reach all that you have voiced, and we will overwhelm the world with both GLONASS satellites and nuclear reactors.

            And now, without processing, we are leading in the nuclear industry and in positioning systems and satellite programs. Can it be better to direct resources to these sectors so as not to lose leadership?
            1. Harry.km 5 February 2020 12: 19 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: ccsr
              Are you sure that you will find consumers for our processed raw materials

              Of course I’m sure of this, otherwise I would not write about it)

              Quote: ccsr
              And now, without processing, we are leading in the nuclear industry and in positioning systems and satellite programs.

              On this site, the truth about the current state of affairs is not accepted)) But nonetheless ...

              Currently, thirty-one countries in the world receive energy through 192 nuclear power plants. These stations operate 438 power units. In Russia, there are ten operating nuclear power plants with 33 units operating. In the United States, 60 stations have 96 (99) units.

              The United States leads the list of leaders, followed by France and Japan. In terms of the amount of electricity generated at nuclear power plants, Russia takes 8th place, and Ukraine - 10th.
              It’s even too lazy to write about GLONASS ... Most of the satellites are finalizing their terms, out of 24 necessary, it really works 22. Check out: https://www.glonass-iac.ru/GLONASS/

              Well, about the software, I expect from you arguments where are we in the software suddenly becoming leaders?)) The fact that now the "Yandex browser" will be forcibly put in new smartphones?)))
              1. ccsr 5 February 2020 13: 22 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Harry.km
                Of course I’m sure of this, otherwise I would not write about it)

                Well, yes, how - with gas to Europe, we have already passed this.
                Quote: Harry.km
                Currently, thirty-one countries in the world receive energy through 192 nuclear power plants.

                You are bashfully moving away from the one who is now leading the construction of nuclear power plants and whose portfolio of orders is scheduled for ten years ahead.
                Well, the fact that many countries use nuclear energy is a joy for us - we are leaders in this area, and this is a fact.
                Quote: Harry.km
                About GLONASS even laziness to write already ...

                Do not write if you do not know that any satellite has a service life, and a change in the orbital constellation occurs constantly, including GLONASS. By the way, why are you personally not happy with the fact that 24 work instead of 22 satellites - maybe this already provides all our needs?
                Quote: Harry.km
                Well, about the software I expect from you arguments where are we in the software suddenly became leaders?))

                The concept of "satellite programs" is much broader than you think, and it includes everything related to the manufacture and launch of satellites into orbit - I hope you understand this explanation at least correctly.
                Quote: Harry.km
                The fact that now the "Yandex browser" will be forcibly put in new smartphones?

                This is not an argument at all - for our country it is small.
            2. max702 5 February 2020 12: 22 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: ccsr
              Are you sure that you will find consumers for our refined raw materials, taking into account the fact that they need crude oil, and which has an excess in the world market?

              Here it is the most important thing in nagging about the fact that we are resourceful, and not a product of deep processing with high added value! "He will eat something .. But someone will give him .." Nobody will let us make money on it! Sales markets at all times have been the most important component of the economy and the MAIN cause of all wars .. If we sell a product of deep processing, what will they do? We don’t really allow us to sell resources without the corresponding load (which reduces profitability and the possibility of development) of SP-2, so it’s not so simple, and they really don’t sit at the top, do you think they don’t want to sell the final product? Even as they want, the margin there is completely different! And they have an understanding that WE can just do it, BUT the "partners" have an even greater understanding of this! If we, bypassing logistics costs, begin to produce the final product, then they will not be able to compete with us (honestly) in principle! And then what should they live on? Go to our service? Stand on your paws behind a bowl of soup before someone who was kicked like a scumbag dog yesterday? Yes, they will do everything so as not to happen to this .. right up to the whole world in ruin ..
  • AU Ivanov. 4 February 2020 13: 25 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Yeah, they compared consumer goods with a really high-tech product.
    1. Harry.km 4 February 2020 14: 36 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Quote: AU Ivanov.
      compared consumer goods with a really high-tech product.

      You do not confuse soft and round ... Consumer goods can very well be high-tech. The same smartphone for example. There silicon drawing technologies in the amount of 10 nM. Do you have any idea what the left-handed machines should be, what would such a chip print and in what ultraviolet is this happening? That's the joke that they can lower high technology to consumer goods and cut the loot on it, but we have everything, either a machine gun comes out, or a mowing machine with vertical take-off. Moreover, either on Chinese machine tools or on the radio tubes of the times of Ivan the Terrible ...
  • Siberia 75 4 February 2020 14: 28 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    Quote: aybolyt678
    a real blow to pride would be a competitive Russian smartphone, and rockets are familiar to them.

    Without its smartphone, Russia will live normally (I'm not talking about young "icicles"). But without a nuclear triad, this is how to look.
  • meandr51 4 February 2020 18: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Seeing a Russian smartphone, they would immediately withdraw troops from Eastern Europe, lift all sanctions and recognize the Crimea.
  • Winnie76 4 February 2020 18: 32 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: aybolyt678
    a real blow to self-esteem would be a competitive Russian smartphone, and missiles are familiar to them ...


  • rica1952 4 February 2020 11: 36 New
    • 9
    • 9
    0
    The product has not yet passed flight tests and the precocious general is already announcing serial deliveries. This is of course a complete nonsense. For the entire period of development of our RT this has not happened.
    1. rudolff 4 February 2020 12: 10 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      Exactly! Within the framework of the LTI there has not been a single launch. That is, the rocket has not yet flown at all. And there will be many such launches under the LTI program. And refinement by results. Let the general better knock on the tree.
    2. Inspector 4 February 2020 13: 06 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Make a fool of us. Not good. And the overestimation of power by orders of magnitude is finally beyond ... This is so that the real army is financed according to the residual principle.
    3. ccsr 4 February 2020 13: 11 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: rica1952
      The product has not yet passed flight tests and the precocious general is already announcing serial deliveries. This is of course a complete nonsense. For the entire period of development of our RT this has not happened.

      If you carefully studied his statement, you would see that it is about the year 2021 without indicating the month, i.e. December or 4th quarter This year is the final date for the first delivery of serial equipment. What prevents one and a half years from conducting all flight tests and signing the state test report? This is a piece of goods, so everything that was used to create prototypes will go to serial production equipment - what is wrong with the terms? They will roll out a couple of serial products to you in November-December - and everything will come true ...
      The general may have got excited, especially if he retires or goes into another field of activity, but I don’t see something unrealistic in the announced term.
      1. Vikxnumx 5 February 2020 11: 12 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        but I don’t see something unrealistic in the announced term.

        "Mace" tell ...
        1. ccsr 5 February 2020 12: 22 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: VIK1711
          "Mace" tell ...

          Firstly, don’t confuse the financing of those years, and the current one is two big differences. And secondly, that there was a mistake with the appointment of Solomon, many who recognize the history of the creation of this product admit.
          I think that now there is a more favorable environment for completing flight tests. Well, I hope that our specialists have not lost their skills yet, and this gives reason to hope for the success of the order on time.
  • 257950 4 February 2020 11: 45 New
    • 8
    • 4
    +4
    In the USSR there was an arsenal of nuclear weapons more than modern Russia, but this did not save him. It is necessary to improve in the fight with propaganda as the main weapon of today's world, and the Sarmatian is an addition to the organization.
    1. gas113 4 February 2020 12: 04 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      What is an organization?
      1. gas113 4 February 2020 12: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Eyes are cutting
      2. Harry.km 4 February 2020 14: 49 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: gas113
        What is an organization?

        An argument is the Senonym of argument, its Albanian onalog.
    2. Proton 4 February 2020 12: 16 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      laughing As the chief American bandit Al Capone grilled, “A kind word is good, but a kind word and colt is more convincing”
    3. Boa kaa 4 February 2020 16: 43 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: 257950
      In the USSR there was an arsenal of nuclear weapons more than modern Russia, but this did not save him.

      And Pskov was an impregnable fortress when the crusaders approached its walls ...
      But there was a traitor who, having lulled the guard, opened the gates to the enemies for money.
      So Gorbi (so that he could quickly meet with his Raisa Maximovna!) Was the same renegade who first perestroika and new thinking, and then surrendering the GDR and softening the principles, turned the great country into a drunkard to EBNu ... who brought the cause of collapse to its logical conclusion.
      So what does the arsenal have to do with it if the bribes were bribed?
      (The knights managed to bribe the Pskov posadnik Tverdil, and he opened the gates of the city for them ... And the Yankees bribed the combine operator Gorbi and he surrendered the country!)
      1. Yuri T. 4 February 2020 17: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I agree with the content, but not with the design. The German Knights' Order is not even close to the NATO block.
        But Pskov and Novgorod then dogged, not weaker than we are now with the 404 kingdom.
        In short, not one boyar then believed that the “distant” Germans were better than the strong and greedy Novgorod, at hand. It’s easier to fool them (I thought), and they obviously have less power, if that) Novgorod himself worked very well with the Hansa, until he decided: why the hell should we lose money on the intermediary? Those, of course, began to obstruct this and to tear up shameless and unjustified duties in their ports. It was then that they began to break in regularly, and they went on return visits. And vice versa...)
        All about grandmas, only about them ...
        DU Puchkova on the channel in detail dismantled with SC Zhukov. With dates, sources, etc.
  • Romka 4 February 2020 12: 01 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    Future....
  • Operator 4 February 2020 12: 10 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +15
    The maximum combat equipment of Sarmat is a monoblock with a three-stage thermonuclear charge of 100 Mtn, thrown at a range of 11000 km.

    The average combat equipment of Sarmat is a divided warhead with ten combat units with a capacity of 1 MT each of individual guidance with the third stage of their breeding, a range of 11 km.

    A range of +18000 km is achieved in the variant with the minimum military equipment of the Sarmat and the third stage of the launch vehicle instead of the dilution stage (to reach almost any point on the globe, and not to fire through the South Pole).

    The Sarmat suborbital modification is optional due to the presence of several dozens of UR-100N UTTKh armed with the Strategic Missile Forces with the planning wing Avangard with a range of 20000 km.

    The Sarmat modification with a monoblock with a capacity of 100 Mt is intended for use in the central regions of the North American continent, which in combination with the use of the Poseidon NPA in coastal areas will ensure the defeat of 100% of military, industrial, agricultural (radioactive factor) and civilian objects in the territory specified continent.
    1. Kirill_Z 4 February 2020 12: 18 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Unfortunately, there are no official confirmations of these characteristics of the complex. But it would be nice ... Especially monoblocks of 100 Mt! Then scum will definitely leave any thoughts about an attack on the Kaliningrad region or Crimea!
    2. Proton 4 February 2020 12: 27 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Where did such a monoblock come from 100 MT? what from science fiction stories?
      1. Operator 4 February 2020 12: 41 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        From the displacement, linear dimensions and layout of NPA Poseidon.
  • Ros 56 4 February 2020 12: 13 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And why and let the striped ones be afraid, they may decrease their ambition. And they think they are exceptional, and that will help to exclude them on occasion.
  • smaug78 4 February 2020 12: 24 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    “RS-28“ Sarmat ”is a real blow to pride for a probable adversary” - this is interesting: on the websites of NATO countries are the same cheers for your technique? Drop the link if anyone has seen this?
    1. demiurg 4 February 2020 12: 32 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      And you read local articles based on advertising leaflets of foreign manufacturers. If the projectile, then the absolute range and accuracy. If the sight, then with such a sight the weapon has homing. I think if someone in the west produces footcloths, they will be with a diaper function, and the tissue will accumulate potential energy with a step and increase the speed of movement by 10-15%.
      As a matter of fact, they haven’t invented any analogs in the world. Simply, if Russia is proud of something, then the liars are arrogant. If in the West, then a little embellished for a red word and forgot to mention small flaws.
      1. ccsr 4 February 2020 13: 38 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: demiurg
        If in the West, then a little embellished for a red word and forgot to mention small flaws.

        I had to study the results of comparative tests of some types of equipment of foreign manufacturers, and I can confirm that they lie godlessly when they advertise their products. For example, they can claim that the range is “thousands of kilometers”, but in reality the real range is 1800-2000 km, although in this situation we must indicate the guaranteed range with one digit, for example 4 or 10 thousand kilometers. Another juggling, for example, in communication technology, when they indicate the power of the transmitting device, which is calculated as the arithmetic mean at all frequencies, and we necessarily indicate the minimum power at any frequency, implying that all the others will be at least this figure. As a result, the radio station is more powerful in advertising, but in practical operation it turns out that our money wins. There were also more nuances when they did not specify the affected frequencies, and when testing all this creeps out, and you begin to understand that you need to conduct a more thorough analysis of all their “achievements” in order not to buy a wrapper.
      2. smaug78 4 February 2020 13: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Thanks of course. But the question was different.
  • Charik 4 February 2020 12: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    So they do not hide the fact that they are fighting against Russia
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  • Dmitry V. 4 February 2020 13: 17 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    Some strange article - the warranty period for the RS-20 comes out, extend indefinitely, this is to lose the guarantee in achieving the goals.

    A potential enemy is armed with several hundred Minuteman III (from 2007 to 2012, the Mk.12A warheads were replaced by Mk.21 (with MX-type ICBMs), guidance and control systems, and power plants).

    The United States has unilaterally reduced 50 units of the MX - a highly accurate missile and advanced for its time.
    At our department, the MX gyro system - AIRS (Advanced Inertial Reference Sphere) was considered very advanced and a model for achievement - the INS drift speed was less than 1,5 x 10 ^ -5 degrees per hour, we did not have comparable at that time on system accuracy.


    In the AIRS system in 1989, one accelerometer cost $ 300, and it took six months to manufacture it (there are three of them all!).
    The total number of parts is about 19000 items.
    Extremely expensive and effective ANN.


    AIRS consists of a beryllium sphere that floats in a fluorocarbon fluid inside the outer shell and can rotate in any direction. The importance of this innovation is that it eliminates the possibility of locking the gimbal (when the axles of two cardan lines line up and destroy three-dimensional freedom of movement) and does not have arbitrary limits of the range of motion

    Beskardannaya drive system, electric motors are driven by conductive fluid.
    In until 2012, all Minuteman III weapons were re-equipped with INS AIRS and their accuracy increased to MX level.

    Our astro correction systems were also very complex and significantly improved accuracy.

    But their mass ...

    Something carried away ..
    So it makes sense to provoke the enemy by creating similar systems that he can technically make at least (if not more) technically advanced.

    The possession of nuclear weapons of a continental range on both sides is a stalemate in itself and gives the technical rotation of aging BMRs as some kind of fictitious advantage - well, this is pure populism, both from the Western press and from our homegrown “expeditions”.
    1. Romka 4 February 2020 13: 55 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Your last paragraph should be in the "frame" and each time put in response, when posting on a forum like "the whole world is in ruin." good
  • v_bueff 4 February 2020 13: 22 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    A rocket is an engine and control system. The rest is from the evil one. Flies a couple of times to the Kura - then from fairy tales you can go to a miracle.
  • Krasnoyarsk 4 February 2020 13: 36 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    = Missile firing range is 18 thousand kilometers, =
    = An intercontinental ballistic missile will be able to attack targets over thousands of kilometers, including through the South Poles. =
    What target does Sarmat attack through the South Pole?
    1. Harry.km 4 February 2020 14: 58 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Krasnoyarsk
      What target does Sarmat attack through the South Pole?

      The back of the earth ...
      1. Krasnoyarsk 4 February 2020 15: 03 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Harry.km
        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
        What target does Sarmat attack through the South Pole?

        The back of the earth ...

        Of course you can read, I do not argue. But to understand the meaning of the read ...
        1. Harry.km 4 February 2020 15: 38 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Krasnoyarsk
          But to understand the meaning of the read ...

          Exactly to the extent that it is written))
          1. Krasnoyarsk 4 February 2020 16: 00 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: Harry.km
            Quote: Krasnoyarsk
            But to understand the meaning of the read ...

            Exactly to the extent that it is written))

            The distance from Moscow to the South Pole is 16189 kilometers.
            The distance from Moscow to Makhachkala is 1800 km.
            If Sarmat starts from Dagestan, the southernmost part of our territory, I doubt the presence of Sarmat there, then he will fly another 14389 km to the South Pole. From the South Pole to fly it remains 3611 km. What is our potential adversary at such a distance from the South Pole?
            1. Harry.km 4 February 2020 16: 33 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              What is our potential adversary at such a distance from the South Pole?

              Well, who is the enemy there, and who is the partner, I’m already confused. Today is a partner, and tomorrow a knife in the back ... And vice versa, yesterday the relationship was reset, and today the avant-garde is in Florida ... As for the RS-28, as they say everywhere, the range of delivery of staple mass is 16000 km from the launch point. Moreover, it was repeatedly indicated that this thing flies in energy-consuming and not optimal orbits. For example, not by ballistic (elliptic), but by suborbital. From Dagestan to Florida 10 thousand in the shortest distance and 30 if you fly the other way. They promise that the RS-28 will bring joy over any trajectory, even from the north, even from the south. And it’s necessary and to the west against the wool can.
              1. Krasnoyarsk 4 February 2020 17: 30 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: Harry.km
                From Dagestan to Florida 10 thousand in the shortest distance and 30 if you fly the other way.

                Sorry, but you again confirmed your inability to understand what was read. The author of the article indicated that Sarmat could attack targets through the South Pole. A potential adversary against which Russia can use Sarmatian are nuclear-weapon powers. What nuclear power can Sarmat fly across the South Pole?
                I know who, from the nuclear powers, can Sarmat hit both “in the wool” and “against the wool? And through the North Pole too. Therefore, I ask you not to be distracted by the coverage of these paths.
                1. Harry.km 4 February 2020 17: 44 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                  Sorry, but you again confirmed your inability to understand what was read.


                  Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                  I know who, from the nuclear powers, can Sarmat hit both “in the coat” and “against the coat?”


                  But how can you understand what you wrote. Do you yourself read your message or are you just writing? You ask me about your knowledge of the nuclear powers and the trajectories of the RS-28 ... How can I know this. I shared my modest (quite admitting that erroneous) knowledge. And to be responsible for the level of your knowledge, excuse me, I'm not competent ...

                  PS RS-28 can fly along the "long path", and choose the goal yourself. By the way, the same ability was mentioned in the TTX P36M (2)
    2. Boa kaa 4 February 2020 17: 08 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Krasnoyarsk
      What target does Sarmat attack through the South Pole?

      Yes, everything is the same ... But only from the southern direction the SPRN and strategic missile defense systems are absent for this purpose ... To avoid tsutswang, they will probably have to "fight for peace" and, at a minimum, sign the extension of START III.
      Of course, they can, in a new way, bring out a fool about the reduction of strategic offensive arms to 500 units and then submit Don to the Peace Prize, as if he had no ... peacemaker!
  • Knell wardenheart 4 February 2020 15: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Despite the fact that security and nuclear deterrence are definitely good things, one cannot help but feel certain discomfort when these means, taken for granted, turn into an everyday mantra on which both actual and psychological confidence in the country's security rests. Moreover, over time, this mantra is overlaid with the belief that possessing such things should ATTEND our potential opponents to the negotiations to a greater extent than ourselves. At times, it may even seem that all these funds are being modernized not so much to protect directly the territory of the Russian Federation (and its CSTO allies), but to cover up our foreign policy (and very vast) activities, which often (as a rule) go against with the activities of Western countries. Again - we prefer emphasis on strength, emphasis on real diplomacy.
    As a result, all these things move us away from the global diplomatic process - not allowing us to become a real alternative to the United States in the matter of peaceful building of international relations. politics, but letting you stay afloat as an evil twin brother (or good, that's how to look ... but a twin).
  • Old26 4 February 2020 15: 53 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    In 2021, serial deliveries of Sarmat missiles to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will begin. This was stated by Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Alexei Krivoruchko.

    Yes, your deeds are wonderful, Lord !!! The first flight test was planned to be carried out at the end of 2018, then at the end of 2019. Then in the first quarter of 2020. A one and a half year flight test delay brings up very bad thoughts. In addition, do they want to spend the entire LI cycle, including GLI, for 10-10,5 months? As Stanislavsky said: "I DO NOT BELIEVE".
  • Old26 4 February 2020 17: 52 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Quote: max702
    As stated 10 rockets are enough ..

    The author has spoiled nonsense. If the total megaton tonnage is 7,5 megatons, then this means that each warhead has a capacity of 750 kt. The zone of continuous destruction and the zone where a person will receive injuries incompatible with life, and this overpressure of 100 kPa, has an area of ​​77 to 133 square kilometers (depending on whether a ground or air explosion).

    as a result of a single missile strike on American territory, 35-37 million American citizens may die

    What nonsense. Population TEN MILLIONIAN CITIES in the United States in the amount of nearly 27 million people. The smallest of the million-plus cities has an area of ​​462 square kilometers. That is, 3 warheads must be put on this city in order to destroy the majority of the population.
    Los Angeles has an area of ​​1300 square meters. km and a population of 3,99 million. In the metropolitan area of ​​Los Angeles live 17 million. But it has a length of 200 km. In short. The stupidity is utter, that 1 rocket is capable of destroying 35-37 million people ...

    Quote: BoA KAA
    Moreover, everyone was silent about the Scythians. But they are and continue to improve ...

    That's just NO TEST HAS BEEN, Alexander! How can you improve what DO NOT TEST ???

    Quote: ccsr
    What prevents one and a half years from conducting all flight tests and signing the state test report? This is a piece of goods, so everything that was used to create prototypes will go to serial production equipment - what is wrong with the terms?

    Nothing interferes. But what prevented these tests from starting from the 4th quarter of 2018? So something very serious is interfering. In addition, neither NPO Mashinostroeniya, nor the Makeeva mall never worked with a mortar launch of products weighing more than 200 tons. It is possible that this is precisely what the plug is.

    Quote: ccsr
    The general may have got excited, especially if he retires or goes into another field of activity, but I don’t see something unrealistic in the announced term.

    Already the fact that a year and a half of delay indicates that. that GLI is unlikely to cost 3 or 4 launches. Even Yuzhmash, who had extensive experience working with heavy missiles, conducted tests in the amount of at least 2 dozen. Well, what “Voivode” was “licked” by the time it went to the test (before that there were 43 launches of the R-36M and 19 R-36UTTX, and that was 26 launches. Is everything new here and there will be 3-4 launches? "NOT I BELIEVE
    1. Operator 4 February 2020 18: 03 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      More than half of the US population lives in 60 American metropolitan areas with populations of 1 million or more.
      http://statinformation.ru/nasgor/ssha-gor-agl.html

      The 100-Mt Monoblock "Sarmata" has a diameter of 72 km of shock wave damage, 150 km of light radiation and 400 x 700 km of radioactive fallout


      When hit by 10 monoblocks on the 10 largest agglomerations such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, etc. - the number of losses will be about 100 million people, excluding victims of radiation.
    2. ccsr 4 February 2020 19: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      That is, 3 warheads must be put on this city in order to destroy the majority of the population.

      It is not necessary at all - secondary factors of damage from the shock wave, such as collapsing high-rise buildings, fires, explosions of oil products, the spread of toxic substances such as chlorine, the destruction of dams, etc. can destroy the inhabitants of the metropolis and fewer charges. Military experts are well aware of all the vulnerabilities of those facilities that will be susceptible to nuclear attack, so do not console yourself with the thought that the majority of the population can survive.
  • Old26 4 February 2020 18: 14 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    Quote: Harry.km
    They promise that the RS-28 will bring joy over any trajectory, even from the north, even from the south. And it’s necessary and to the west against the wool can.

    Anything can promise. For example, we are told that the south of the USA is not covered by the SPRN radar. Yes, when there was a suborbital R-36 orb. in the 60s there were no radars there, for this, in principle, they created it. But it’s already 50 years, as there are such radars, and we all continue to "hang on" that the flight through the UP is necessary in order for the strike to be sudden, that it will not be detected.
    Flying along a suborbital trajectory led to the fact that the cast weight was about three times less for such a rocket than for a ballistic one. And we are told that we will deliver 10 tons there, at least through a joint venture, at least through UP

    Quote: Harry.km
    PS RS-28 can fly along the "long path", and choose the goal yourself. By the way, the same ability was mentioned in the TTX P36M (2)

    Since when did the Voivode suddenly become a suborbital rocket. A maximum of 16 and even then with a light candy bar

    Quote: BoA KAA
    Yes, everything is the same ... But only from the southern direction for this purpose there are no missile defense systems and strategic missile defense ...

    Alexander! Well, I did not expect from you that you will repeat the nonsense circulated on the network. There is a radar, and for a very, very long time. Those who write this in the media extrapolate the situation of the 60s when they really had nothing there at the present stage. We must somehow argue about the delirium of flying through the south pole of a missile with a range of 18000 km (and sometimes they say that it will throw 10 tons there)
    1. Harry.km 4 February 2020 19: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Since when did the Voivode suddenly become a suborbital rocket.

      I didn’t write that p36m2 is suborbital ... I wrote that it can fly through the south pole. Conversion "Dnepr" is quite an orbital rocket that puts a warhead (payload) into a low orbit, it’s all about weight ... Given that there was a p36orb, and now the p100u has become a carrier of an orbital-planning head, why not assume that there were undeclared opportunities and the p36m2 send a little higher and a little further than 11-16Kkm. The entire VO site is saturated with the thesis that the performance characteristics of our missiles are underestimated by at least half))) There, people load 100 MT into Sarmatian, take it off directly from Poseidon and immediately into Sarmatian ... They are probably in one silo, both vertically)))
  • sevryuk 4 February 2020 18: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: max702
    In our yard, capitalism is therefore lobbying for certain forces in the direction of certain decisions is present in full growth!

    "I'm pregnant - it's temporary!" In our courtyard, feudalism-kleptarchism, both of which are broken in the phase of the transfer of power to the heirs.
  • Old26 4 February 2020 18: 27 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Quote: Operator
    The 100-Mt Monoblock "Sarmata" has a diameter of 72 km of shock wave damage, 150 km of light radiation and 400 x 700 km of radioactive fallout

    Yes, you leave your wet dreams of a 100-megaton unit at either the Sarmat or the Poseidon. such blocks have never been tested and no one will put instead of an RGCH with 10 blocks of 0,75-1 mt one block of 100 megatons. Even at Voevoda they could not deliver a 20-25 megaton unit, and improvements would remove Voevoda from the OSV-2 contract field. And not deployed. And those that were deployed on the R-36M (15A14) with a capacity of 18-20 mt stood on the database for a couple of years and were removed. It is more profitable to use 10 at 1 mt than one x10Mt.
    1. Octopus 4 February 2020 20: 14 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Yes, you leave your wet dreams of a 100 megaton unit at Sarmat,

      No, no, let him bet. With the current development of the enemy’s strategic missile defense, shooting down 10 pieces (or how many of them will take off, we will smash 8) is quite realistic in contrast to the RGM. World peace.
  • Old26 4 February 2020 23: 02 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    It is not necessary at all - secondary factors of damage from the shock wave, such as collapsing high-rise buildings, fires, explosions of oil products, the spread of toxic substances such as chlorine, the destruction of dams, etc. can destroy the inhabitants of the metropolis and fewer charges. Military experts are well aware of all the vulnerabilities of those facilities that will be susceptible to nuclear attack, so do not console yourself with the thought that the majority of the population can survive.

    Secondary is all clear. Here I have a city - 171 square meters. km area. Roughly speaking, 13x13 km, in any case a 750 kt charge with a radius of continuous destruction of approximately 3,6 km will not destroy the city 100%. You must admit that not every city has huge reserves of oil products (at many points), chlorine reserves are again at dozens of points. Fires will be, as well as death in high-rise buildings. But in a city with half a million people, if the "sleeping area" is destroyed, then this is about 1/5 of the population. And the author of 10 charges of 750 ct is going to destroy 32-37 million people.
    It’s not worth the hassle, but to think that the whole city will die from a single 750-kt strike, it’s also not worth thinking ...

    Quote: Harry.km
    I didn’t write that p36m2 is suborbital ... I wrote that it can fly through the south pole.

    And it is precisely the suborbital rocket that can fly through the South Pole, but not the ballistic Voyevoad, which has a maximum range of 8 km with an 16000 mt block. It will reach the South Pole from Uzhur, but no further. In order for it to hit targets in the USA through UP, it is necessary that it has a range of at least 30 km. A completely different warhead with an additional compartment, in which there will be a control system. In addition, given that the military equipment of the Voivode is approximately 000 tons, theoretically, it will be able to abandon to the United States 5, maximum 2 warheads. With an accuracy of 3 "bast shoes" ...

    Quote: Harry.km
    Conversion "Dnepr" is quite an orbital rocket, which displays a warhead (payload) in a low orbit, it all matters only in weight ...

    That's it. At a height of 200 km and into a polar orbit with an inclination of 98 °, the Dnieper can drop a payload of 2,5 tons. (for 300 km - 2 tons) And this means that the warhead itself will have less than 2 tons. But how much less should be considered.

    Quote: Harry.km
    Given that the p36orb existed, and now the p100u has become the bearer of the orbital-planning head, why not assume that there were undeclared capabilities and send the p36m2 a little higher and a little further than 11-16Kkm.

    Yes, not even a trip around the world can be declared. The whole question is how much it will take to undeclared 30000 km. In the TTZ on the R-36M2, the suborbital version was not registered (and some of my friends worked for me in the 70s and 80s in the Yuzhnoye cafe, as they called their design bureau.

    Quote: Harry.km
    The whole site of VO is saturated with the thesis that the performance characteristics of our missiles are underestimated by at least half))) There people load 100 MT into the Sarmatian, take it off the Poseidon and immediately into the Sarmatian ... They are apparently in the same silos, both vertically)))

    It is sometimes impregnated with such nonsense that ears are wrapped in a tube. Each tries to beat the other in the level of delirium.
  • dirk182 5 February 2020 08: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I now have the feeling that we are repeating the fate of the Soviet Union. Sarmatians, Almaty, and at the same time, a commodity economy and a falling oil price. Such an alarming feeling that in its present form the country will not reach 2030.
  • Operator 5 February 2020 13: 28 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Quote: ccsr
    now it is the leader in the construction of nuclear power plants and whose portfolio of orders is scheduled for ten years ahead

    Praise be to our Lord Jesus Christ that Rosatom is installing megaton-power radiological explosive devices (that is, nuclear reactors in the TMV period) not in our country bully
  • Old26 5 February 2020 15: 23 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Quote: bayard
    for example, to be limited to eight "Boreas-A", and the rest (at least 4, but better than 6) to build as carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic - 7 each. in each launch cup. These Kyrgyz Republics may / should become Caliber-M (range 4500 km.) And Zircon. Each such "Borey-K" will be able to carry 112 KR

    Maybe less. We do not know what the dimensions of Caliber-M and Zircon will be.

    Quote: bayard
    future "Husky" \ "Likes" are again designed by monstrous communities with batteries of the Kyrgyz Republic, with a displacement of not less than "Ash-M"

    And here either-or. Or a lot of missiles, but a decent displacement, or a small number of missiles (for example, 12 KR) and a small displacement. It will not work otherwise
  • Old26 7 February 2020 02: 07 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Quote: bayard
    With a high probability, part of the SSBNs survived - those on duty. Part of the land-based ICBMs that did not participate in the first strike, mobile missile systems (Midgetman and the MX mobile version worked hard on those then in the USA)

    “Midjitman” at the time of the collapse of the Union was in one or two versions. And it is better to attribute it not to mobile, but to relocated complexes. Moreover, the extremely low landing limited his mobility only to the highway.
    MX has never been deployed in a mobile version. There were plans, but their mobile version turned out to be extremely expensive (in all two versions of the mobile and one version of the relocated)

    Quote: bayard
    The same ICBM Molodets of the Pavlograd assembly was based not only on the BZHRK, but had an option of underground mobile basing - cruised along the ring railway in the tunnel, with 10 launch mines for each such ICBM.

    Do not smack nonsense (it hurts). The RT-23UTTX products were deployed only in the railway version (36 launchers in 3 divisions. 15Zh61 missile) and 56 15Zh60 mine missiles in two divisions (46 in Ukraine and 10 in Russia). No underground ring railways have ever existed, nor have 10 mines per rocket existed. No need to invent

    Quote: bayard
    The position area was near Novomoskovsk, Dnipropetrovsk region. It’s hard to imagine grandiose constructions and the price of such rockets, about 40 units were based there.

    It is really difficult to imagine the price of the position area near Novomoskovsk, when the position area of ​​these missiles was 350 km from this city. In the area of ​​Pervomaisk. Where was deployed 46 silos with ICBM 15ZH60

    Quote: bayard
    And we had a lot of similar systems. And these systems are the weapons of the SECOND PUNCH. The “Voivode” and “Stilettos” were supposed to participate in the first \ reciprocal, and the “Well done”, “Couriers”, “Typhoons”, “Sineva”, etc. - weapons of the SECOND strike exclusively. After further exploration of the results of the first strike - on healed targets.

    Again you shit rubbish. Artificially dividing all ICBMs and SLBMs into weapons of the first and second strike.
    All ICBMs are first-strike weapons. But cruise missiles - yes, a second-strike weapon. And fired at the targets and "Voivode", and R-36M UTTH, and UR-100N UTTH, and "Well done" and all the other ICBMs, which were armed, like all SLBMs (although SLBMs could deliver a somewhat delayed strike due to the specifics of their duty roster). Only the non-existent “Courier” could not take part in this. From the word completely ...
    And who would produce additional intelligence after a massive nuclear strike?

    Quote: bayard
    The war, for which the General Staff was preparing, had to be stubborn, total and extended in time for at least several months.

    I’m afraid that everything would end in a few hours (nuclear exchange). And if then some kind of hostilities would have taken place, it is unlikely that they would have given anything as additional preferences. Countries would be destroyed. Moreover, for a period of about 85-87, each of the parties (the USA and the USSR) had about 30 BG each. That would be enough for everyone ...