New warheads for Ohio: how the US wants to contain Russia


Photo: USNavy / Wikimedia.org


USN vs. Strategic Rocket Forces


Both the modern American and Russian nuclear triads originate during the Cold War, when the goal and task were extremely simple and clear: completely wipe the enemy off the face of the planet. And yet there are differences. The American strategic nuclear forces are based on Ohio-type nuclear submarines, each of which carries up to 24 UGM-133A Trident II (D5) solid-fuel three-stage ballistic missiles.

Now the Ohio is nominally the most destructive submarine in the world. Even promising "Colombia" will not have such opportunities: the number of ballistic missiles will be reduced to 16 units. In total, the US Navy has fourteen Ohio-class submarines with the Tridents: the rest are rearmament, making them carriers of Tomahawk cruise missiles.


In turn, Russia relies more on mine-based and mobile-based complexes. The choice is small: all submarines of the project 667BDRM "Dolphin" were built quite a long time ago - even before the collapse of the Soviet Union (Ohio, by the way, is also far from new). Yes, and weapons in the face of the Soviet liquid R-29 can hardly be called modern. The real alternative to them could be the “Bulava” that is not being manufactured now, but the R-39UTTX. But she didn’t.

New warhead


There are no claims to Trident II: it is now the most powerful solid fuel ballistic missile of submarines and one of the most powerful missile systems in general. According to data from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists magazine for 2019, one rocket can have up to eight W88 blocks of 455 kilotons, up to fourteen W76-0 blocks of 100 kilotons (they were decommissioned), or as many W-76-1 blocks 90 kilotons each. For comparison: the new Russian “Bulava” mentioned above carries six (according to other sources, ten) warheads of 150 kilotons each.

The more unusual it may seem news on equipping the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) submarine with Trident II (D5) missiles with W76-2 thermonuclear warheads, each of which has a very modest power - only about five kilotons. Recall, recently the site of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) reported that at the end of December 2019, the submarine first went on patrol from the Kings Bay naval base, having missiles with such warheads. Not all missiles are equipped with new blocks, but only one or two. Moreover, each of these missiles has only a few warheads W76-2. The other dozens of USS Tennessee submarine missiles have the W88 or less powerful W-76-1.

New warheads for Ohio: how the US wants to contain Russia

According to the bmpd Strategy and Technology Analysis Center, the first W76-2 warhead was manufactured at Pantex in Amarillo, Texas last February. At the same time, they announced that the start of the delivery of these warheads by the U.S. Navy was planned for the end of fiscal 2019. In total, according to experts, they produced about 50 W76-2 warheads.

Loosen to strengthen


The main question can be formulated as follows: why did the Americans need this weapon? As you know, for the first time about its creation was announced relatively recently, in 2018. The main goal is the confrontation of the Russian Federation. According to American experts, the doctrine of “escalation for de-escalation” is allowed in Russia: in this case, low-power tactical nuclear weapons can be used in an attack using conventional means.

The W76-2 warhead is designed to show that the Americans also have such weapons at their disposal, and that Russia will no longer be able to individually use the "right of the strong." However, the harmonious concept in the Federation of American Scientists is not shared. “All this recalls the old-fashioned methods of warfare during the Cold War. In the past, any tactical nuclear weapon was justified by such arguments: that less power and "lightning fast use" are needed to deter. Now the new low-powered W76-2 gives the United States a weapon that, according to its proponents, is better to use and more effective as a deterrent. There is nothing new here, the authors of the publication note.

From the point of view of Russia, the launch of Trident II (D5) with the aim of using low-power warheads is no different from the usual launch of this missile and the actual start of the “big war”. So, according to experts, the W76-2 does not make sense from a practical point of view. In addition, experts indicate the presence in the United States of air-based cruise missiles with nuclear warheads and tactical thermonuclear bombs B61, the use of which will be equivalent in effect to the use of W76-2.

The last thesis is only partially true. The Russian aerospace forces have long and in large numbers received new Su-35S and Su-30SM fighters, as well as modern S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems (we also recall that in December the latest S-350 was transferred to the army for the first time). Despite the actual technical superiority of the US Air Force in terms of fighter aircraft, Russia can effectively bring down air carriers of tactical nuclear weapons.


There is another point of view. Allegedly, the W76-2 warheads are directed not against the Russian Federation, but against Iran. And they were not created in order to serve as a deterrent, but in order to attack. If this is the case, then the entrepreneurialism of the Americans knows no bounds, because even without taking into account tactical nuclear weapons, they have a great many conventional conventional weapons, which, one way or another, pose a huge danger to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which does not have modern weapons that can counter them. So, for example, all attempts to create a national Iranian fighter ended in nothing. And the notorious "mosquito fleet" can fight with anyone, but not with the United States Navy, which have an absolute advantage. The same, in general, applies to the DPRK, the war with which, however, the US leadership will avoid by any means due to the presence of DPRK nuclear weapons.

(Non) symmetrical answer


The marine component of the Russian nuclear triad faces more mundane tasks. Simply put, the main one is the nominal efficiency and at least partial replacement of old Soviet boats and missiles, which sooner or later will go to history.

Recall, January 24, Izvestia wrote that Russian experts intend to eliminate the critical inability of Bulava to pass through the ice. For this purpose, the carrier boats are supposedly taught to use special unguided rockets, thanks to which ice holes will form, through which ballistic missiles can pass. The first tests of this system without explosives were allegedly conducted back in 2014.


At the same time, there is no talk of any replacement for the Bulava or its carriers represented by the project 955 submarine. This, in particular, is well illustrated by the recently shown model of a small multi-purpose submarine of the future project 545 with the code “Laika-Navy”, which, possibly, will replace the boats of projects 971 and 885, but not the aforementioned “Boreas”.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrey Yuryevich 16 February 2020 18: 13 New
    • 3
    • 7
    -4
    New warheads for Ohio: how the US wants to contain Russia
    stop buying oil and rocket engines in the end. and then some snot ....
    1. Range 16 February 2020 18: 20 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      They already have the most promising weapons - this is hypersonic sanctions. request
    2. Starover_Z 16 February 2020 18: 24 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      New warheads for Ohio: how the US wants to contain Russia
      stop buying oil and rocket engines in the end. and then some snot ....

      Or maybe they think they will defeat us, and since the war will not be childish, then our cities and industrial centers have decided not to completely destroy, so that later they will move to the territory of Russia? Perverts in one word!
      1. eklmn 17 February 2020 01: 45 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        “Or maybe they think they will defeat us, ...”
        Under UN law, a conquering country must provide a living wage for a defeated country. There’s not enough money to feed 140 million, so no one will bomb Russia to conquer!
        And if only to feed! And to raise medicines, hospitals, schools, pensions to an average level! Cheaper - do not touch at all, do not even pay attention ...!
        1. dumkopff 17 February 2020 09: 45 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          UN established by the victors in World War II. If there are winners in the third world, they will write new laws.
          1. Starover_Z 19 February 2020 00: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: dumkopff
            UN established by the victors in World War II. If there are winners in the third world, they will write new laws.

            After the third world war, probably a nuclear missile war, the winners will collect brushwood for bonfires for cooking and collect roots in the forests!
            1. dumkopff 20 February 2020 16: 13 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The aim of the war is a world better than the pre-war. From this point of view, it is unlikely that there will be winners in the global nuclear slaughter. Better not be anyone.
      2. silver_roman 19 February 2020 00: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I would even say masochists))
  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 February 2020 18: 33 New
    • 13
    • 2
    +11
    Yes, and weapons in the face of the Soviet liquid R-29 can hardly be called modern.

    I read it and almost collapsed from the stool. This is the newest “Leiner” with “Blue” - not modern ?!
    1. Grigory_45 16 February 2020 20: 47 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      This is the newest “Leiner” with “Blue” - not modern ?!

      the missiles are not old, but ... new submarines for the R-29RM, Sineva and Liner missiles are not being built. Consequently, the liquid marine group is doomed to extinction naturally. Now we have a solid-fuel Bulava in trend, and we will soon lose the above missiles, because their carriers (667BDRM) are gradually being withdrawn from the fleet.
      1. tima_ga 16 February 2020 21: 32 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I understood the author of the article so that he considers liquid rockets a priori not meeting modern requirements ...
        1. Grigory_45 16 February 2020 21: 41 New
          • 4
          • 4
          0
          Yes, the author wrote exactly what you are talking about. He called the indicated SLBMs obsolete, which, of course, is not true. But it doesn’t make it any easier for us. These missiles we will soon lose - with the withdrawal of the last 667BDRM from the fleet
  3. shinobi 16 February 2020 18: 36 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    The calculation is that after hitting "tactical" warheads in the mines of the Strategic Missile Forces, Russia does not dare to answer, and if it does, it will protect them. In general, it’s another bluff from the Yankees. Moreover, they themselves understand that the opponent did not buy
    1. arkadiyssk 16 February 2020 19: 18 New
      • 5
      • 12
      -7
      These 4-6 missiles are not at all for hitting mine complexes, and they will not break anything at the mine. These missiles, like the B61 bombs, are intended as a sobering blow to a cluster of advancing troops. During the Cold War, these were clusters of advancing Soviet troops, now these are clusters of advancing Ichthamnets on the border of the Baltic states or Poland.
      1. Constanty 16 February 2020 19: 36 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Only an attack, even with small warheads, is the beginning of an armageddy. The new warheads for the Ohio, they have no sense at all. I will say more - this only increases the threat. When the "Ohio" shoot, no one will be surprised what their warheads are - there will be a corresponding blow and dominoes. lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons is also a big mistake.
      2. Whalebone 16 February 2020 20: 50 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        And what, for a "sobering blow" it is necessary to use ICBMs? To detect the launch and immediately shoot back?
      3. shinobi 17 February 2020 06: 55 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        With a head completely bo-bo? Use of nuclear weapons against the forces of a state with nuclear weapons? fool Tie up with toys at night looking.
        1. 5-9
          5-9 17 February 2020 12: 24 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Of course. It’s quite a scenario for both NATO and the ATS ... to throw tactical nuclear weapons in Germany-Poland ... And our doctrine, 5-10 special warheads to ensure the operation of each brigade / division - and the alga. The US in response could only try the cast iron B61 in response to throw with a small probability of successful use.
          I see no reason why the death of thousands of American or Russian soldiers from a tactical nuclear weapons near Krakow conditionally should lead to an MRNU and tens of millions of dead Russians and Americans
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 February 2020 17: 38 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: 5-9
            I see no reason why the death of thousands of American or Russian soldiers from TNW

            The reason is very simple. In the event that during an exacerbation of tension, or, especially, during a period of hostilities, an ICBM launch will be recorded, no one will understand if there are strategic warheads or tactical ones. Immediately break in response from all that is. And the scenario that you voiced is possible in principle - but only if ICBMs are not used as carriers for tactical nuclear weapons
            1. ser56 18 February 2020 17: 17 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              the ICBM launch will be recorded, no one will understand, strategic warheads or tactical ones

              Yes, there simply will not be time for this - the main thing is to determine whether a real launch .. hi . and if there will be more than one ... request
    2. Volder 16 February 2020 20: 13 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      With “tactical” warheads with a capacity of 5 kilotons, it is impossible to destroy our strategic missile forces mines. Tactical nuclear charges have a different purpose.
      1. voyaka uh 17 February 2020 22: 54 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Can. The thermonuclear component is removed from the warhead, leaving only
        plutonium fuse. There remains a significant empty space in the head of the cone.
        It is not difficult to fill it, for example, with a large cumulative charge.
        Or armor-piercing tip.
        The shaft cover breaks through, and then a small atomic charge is triggered.
        1. Volder 18 February 2020 08: 06 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          What kind of accuracy should the rocket and warheads have from it in order to land right in the lid ?? The accuracy of modern nuclear warheads is tens of meters. And given that we have the means to deal with various navigation systems (satellite, radar, laser, optical), as well as active means of destruction near mines (ultra-close missile defense), the idea of ​​a direct hit on the top of the mine looks unrealistic.
          1. voyaka uh 18 February 2020 10: 49 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            "The accuracy of modern nuclear warheads is tens of meters" ////
            ----
            Even if the warhead enters the ground at a distance of 10-30 m from the mine, an underground nuclear explosion of 5 kT will cause a seismic shock that will move the mine to the side and damage it.
            A mine will survive only in an aerial nuclear explosion.
            1. Volder 18 February 2020 14: 32 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              What you are saying is unlikely to happen. Mines are “drilled” in dense soil, and not in clay and sand. A transport and launch container with combat equipment and control systems is suspended on the pendulums inside the cylinder. In the event of a mine deformation, the rocket will not be damaged and will freely come out. At the moment of start-up, the depreciation system is rigidly blocked. Our mines are designed for overpressure from outside to 100 atmospheres (for comparison: the building collapses at 0,2 atm.). And of course, as I have already said, ballistic missiles on approach to the mines will either be diverted to the side by EW systems or destroyed by an ultra-close missile defense. As for conventional cruise missiles (the same tomahawks), which miraculously break through the layered air defense system, up to ten missiles will be required to destroy one shaft cover. My opinion is taken from a competent source - Veteran of the Strategic Missile Forces, Doctor of Technical Sciences Pyotr Belov.
              1. voyaka uh 18 February 2020 14: 52 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                "either will be diverted away by electronic warfare systems, or destroyed by an ultra-short-range missile defense" ///
                ---
                The warhead of ICBMs - that is Russian, that American - is a simple cone falling like a meteorite without a radar in it. EW is useless absolute.
                No super near missile defense exists in nature. Or they shoot down at altitudes of 80 km and higher. Or all.
                In Russia, a strategic missile defense is deployed only around the city of Moscow.
                And in the USA - in Alaska and California.
                1. bk0010 18 February 2020 20: 53 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  The warhead of ICBMs - that is Russian, that American - is a simple cone falling like a meteorite without a radar in it. EW is useless absolute.
                  Check out the Radag at the Pershing.
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  No super near missile defense exists in nature
                  Read about Mozyr
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. Volder 19 February 2020 19: 57 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  The warhead of ICBMs - that is Russian, that American - is a simple cone falling like a meteorite without a radar in it. EW is useless absolute.
                  No super near missile defense exists in nature.

                  1. Yes, warheads themselves are invulnerable to electronic warfare systems. Then I made a reservation :)
                  2. Ultra-close missile defense already exists, it has recently been finalized. Here you made a reservation :)
                  3. Soon we will have the S-500, capable of shooting down ICBMs. These air defense systems can protect the mines.
            2. ser56 18 February 2020 17: 19 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              A mine will survive only in an aerial nuclear explosion.

              You are mistaken ...
              "An increased protection class in which the mine will save a rocket in the zone of expansion of the soil at a shock wave pressure of 2-5 MPa. Also, an area up to 5 MPa is a zone of separate impact of the shock wave and the fire hemisphere: at a corresponding shock wave temperature of 4-6 MPa, 2000-2600 To, separation and advance of the shock front from the boundary of the growing fire hemisphere occurs [5] [6] (silos of S-3 BRPSD (France) 5 MPa, upgraded silos of UR-100 3 MPa [7], silos of R-36M rockets (USSR ) 3-6 MPa [8]);
              High class: a zone of pile-up of soil from a funnel up to 2 m thick and a shock wave of 5-10 MPa with the simultaneous action of a shock front and a high-temperature fire hemisphere (silos R-36M2, Minitmen-2, 3, LGM-118 6-7 MPa, since 1971 g.); "
            3. vostok68 23 February 2020 05: 24 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              "voyaka uh" You are just like "Foreign Military Review" (as a child I read on military service), a specialist in all arms issues!
          2. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 12: 20 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Volder
            The accuracy of modern nuclear warheads is tens of meters.

            KVO Pershing (MGM-31C Pershing II) - about 30 meters, Tomahawk - 10-15 meters (or less). It is enough for a direct hit on the silos.
            In addition, if the explosion is underground, then a miss even a hundred meters will be fatal - there will be a seismic shift of the soil layers, as in an earthquake, which will either destroy the mine PU or disable it.
            1. Volder 19 February 2020 15: 48 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              1. Pershing does not exist. 2. We are talking about long-range ballistic missiles, which have an accuracy of about 100 meters. 3. The seismic shift is not terrible for mines with missiles, why - explained above. 4. Your hopes for the easy destruction of our missiles in mines are stupid.
    3. silver_roman 19 February 2020 00: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      if they really believed in their missile defense they would have attacked a long time ago. Also, do not forget that missile defense only works on the take-off area. I am sure that not a single missile defense will be able to bring down an individual guidance unit, reaching the target from the stratosphere at a speed of 20 - 25 M. Moreover, the missile defense works on the basis of the kinetic nucleus. The USSR system about Moscow and 135 at least equipped with nuclear warheads.
      There is only one conclusion: the Yankees never believed that they would be the first to be attacked. They don’t even have a bomb shelter like we have a metro.
  4. rudolff 16 February 2020 18: 45 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    "Yes, and the weapons in the face of the Soviet liquid R-29 can hardly be called modern."
    I beg you, mom! Is the R-29 RMU2.1 not modern? The most advanced liquid SLBM in the world and a real competitor to Trident, unlike the Mace.
    And why either Russia or Iran? What about other options? The Americans simply lowered the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, that's all.
    1. figwam 16 February 2020 20: 10 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: rudolff
      Americans simply lowered the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and that’s all.

      Yes, that's right, as I understand it, they are going to use this warhead somewhere.
      1. rudolff 16 February 2020 20: 17 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Probably yes. Just because they would not bother with these warheads. Someone expects a flogging.
  5. asv363 16 February 2020 20: 05 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Ilya Legat
    Recall, January 24, Izvestia wrote that Russian experts intend to eliminate critical Mace's inability to pass through the ice.

    Dear author, how thick is the ice capable of overcoming the Trident II (D5) SLBM at launch? Were there launches “through” the Arctic ice?
    1. Grigory_45 16 February 2020 20: 55 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: asv363
      how thick is the Trident II (D5) SLBM capable of breaking at launch?

      Is the American SLBM capable of such a thing? However, for US Navi this is not so critical - they will launch from the Atlantic or the Pacific, where there is no ice, like the Arctic

      We ourselves do not currently have SLBMs under the ice launch. The R39UTTH missile had an ARSS - a shock-absorbing missile-launch system, a sort of multi-ton structure that was worn on the missile and performed several functions at once: it ensured the amortization of the missile in stormy conditions and during shocks in the event of close explosions of depth charges, protected the missile in the underwater launch section in a collision with foreign objects (ice floes, etc.), as well as breaking through thick ice at launch. After the rocket left the water, small rocket engines installed on the ARSS fired, which were removed from the ARSS rocket and diverted it away from the rocket and submarine.
      But the P39UTTX missiles have long been eliminated.

      Therefore, they intend to equip the SSBN with special missiles for breaking ice in ice.

      In the photo - R39UTTH with ARSS
  6. Operator 16 February 2020 20: 16 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    The author "people mixed up in a bunch of horses" (C).

    What does the USA’s inability to fight with Iran mean using ballistic missiles (since Tomahawk cruise missiles are stacked by Russian-made air defense systems and electronic warheads), as well as an incorrect comparison of the golimny Trident with the previously unrivaled R-29RMU2?

    At the time of other medium-range ballistic missiles (except for the Trident, launched along a gentle trajectory at a minimum firing distance of up to 3000 km), the United States did not have a word at all. Therefore, the Americans have to act on the principle of “inventing a trick” and remove the second stage from their nuclear weapons placed on SLBMs to reduce their power to the level of the first plutonium stage and, accordingly, lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, North Korea, Venezuela , then everywhere.

    And where did the author find out that tactical nuclear charges are limited to 5 CTN? For his information, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have quite a tactical nuclear charge TK 66-05 with a capacity of 250 CTN and a weight of 140 kg (weight in the form of warheads / warheads of the order of 300 kg), which can be installed on all types of tactical nuclear weapons, starting with the MLRS "Tornado" and ending with various cruise and ballistic missiles of land, air and sea based.

    It is with these TC 66-05 that we will sow the European theater of operations with the square-nesting method if any conventional weapons are used against us. And if anyone tries to use 5-CTN “tactical charges”, then he will receive an MRNE in his national territory from charges from 1 to 100 MTN, for it was said by American scientists: “Escalation is needed for de-escalation” (C).
  7. CTABEP 16 February 2020 21: 12 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    In general, the calculation is very simple - the Russian Federation uses tactical nuclear weapons, the United States responds with a single ICBM launch from Ohio, to which the SPRN will not react (single launch, it’s not the time to start the nuclear Apocalypse), multiplying by zero the most likely launchers of the OTRK. After that, the resolution of the conflict goes into the stage of diplomacy, because no one needs a full-fledged conflict with the deadly mutual exchange of thermonuclear death.

    But, in general, the topic is shaky of course, everything can again come down to a conditional colonel, who can accidentally press a button. In general, the purpose of the device is clear, but the gods will give it, it will never take off. I personally would like to live there before my great-grandchildren, and not burn out in a nuclear fire due to a local conflict.
    1. bk0010 16 February 2020 21: 32 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: CTABEP
      After that, the resolution of the conflict goes into the stage of diplomacy, because no one needs a full-fledged conflict with the deadly mutual exchange of thermonuclear death.
      Yes, hell there: they lose in this case much more. Just because they have more people and industry, and their arsenals are equal.
      1. CTABEP 16 February 2020 22: 01 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        They lose in the event of an exchange. And the exchange, as the logic of any normal person suggests, is worth going only with the mass launch of enemy missiles. And what does it mean to lose more - in any case, we are losing our physical lives, our government - at least our good life. This is not a computer game with two players behind the monitors, who can count their / enemy losses and move soldiers on the map, here if it comes to rocket exchange, the apple wanted to live in Australia, no one would shoot there.
        1. bk0010 16 February 2020 22: 12 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: CTABEP
          Yab wanted to live in Australia, no one would shoot there.
          They will surely shoot: there (now in New Zealand) wealthy Pinocchio from the states are buying up land for their "alternate airfields" so that the locals are already groaning (the price of real estate is growing slightly). But for these places a couple of monoblocks will not be regretted. In addition, although they are not members of NATO, they are members of ANZUS, so at least they will rake in the capitals.
          1. voyaka uh 17 February 2020 22: 59 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            No one will shoot there. You will definitely survive in Australia.
            And in the USA warhead is not enough. Because they will be afraid
            that missile defense will intercept part of the warhead. And the part itself will not reach. There are always technical failures.
            The coordinates of the goals are entered in advance. Will not be redone.
            1. bk0010 18 February 2020 00: 16 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              And in the USA warhead is not enough.
              Not enough for all of the USA. But for decision-makers, and for those who are affected by them, the head will be found for sure. And they build shelters in Australia and New Zealand. Build a bunch (disdain local). Of course, the coordinates will not be redone before launch, but what makes you think that they are not entered in advance?
              1. voyaka uh 18 February 2020 00: 55 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Shelters are built by a handful of millionaires.
                Chasing them with ICBMs? laughing
                You are just offended to tears that a significant part of the hated Anglo-Saxons will survive after a nuclear war. I want to kill everyone, everyone ...
                But they prudently settled all over the globe, sly ones. wassat
                1. bk0010 18 February 2020 20: 27 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Actually, the whole of Australia is inhabited precisely by the Anglo-Saxons (well, not counting the Aborigines), so to accomplish your goal you wouldn’t have one head there, it would have to be “planted using the square-nesting method” in order to achieve something, but free goals for nothing now. Shelters there are built not only by young millionaires from Nasdak, but also by some bastard who thought there would be lost. It didn’t work out.
        2. carstorm 11 16 February 2020 23: 25 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          in fact, there will be a treaty on mutual military assistance with the states making them one of the goals.
        3. SVD68 18 February 2020 08: 14 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: CTABEP
          And the exchange, as the logic of any normal person suggests, is worth going only with the mass launch of enemy missiles. And what does it mean to lose more - in any case, we are losing our physical lives, our government - at least our good life.

          For the sake of such a way of thinking, these warheads are created. Purely an element of psychological warfare.
          Americans like a bone in the throat doctrine of retaliation, because it fundamentally prevents current missiles from hitting our missiles in mine installations - while their missiles reach, ours will already leave the mines. The Americans in every way persuade to abandon this doctrine, emphasizing its danger in case of error. But our military-political leadership is not being conducted. And then the Americans embarked on a frank provocation that seriously increased the risk of an erroneous retaliatory strike — they presented SLBMs as tactical weapons. The calculation is just that our leadership will be scared and abandon the doctrine of retaliatory strike. And in the event of an enemy launch, SLBMs will expect a result to find out with what kind of warheads there are.
          It must be made clear to the Americans that those who play with fire will burn their own house!
          1. 3danimal 18 February 2020 09: 22 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            How will this help you personally and your family?
            The very rhetoric of nuclear threats is unacceptable. NF should only be a guarantee of protection against capture / conquest, but not for "geopolitical games" and blackmail. The price is too high. The important thing is not how many “Americans” will die there, but what YOUR relatives (as well as mine) will burn.
            1. SVD68 18 February 2020 12: 21 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: 3danimal
              How will this help you personally and your family?
              The very rhetoric of nuclear threats is unacceptable. NF should only be a guarantee of protection against capture / conquest, but not for "geopolitical games" and blackmail. The price is too high. The important thing is not how many “Americans” will die there, but what YOUR relatives (as well as mine) will burn.

              Again you are trying to ascribe your thoughts to me. Stop it.
              1. 3danimal 18 February 2020 14: 59 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                All theories of "de-escalation through nuclear escalation" are extremely dangerous. And they have an unbearable price in the long run.
                1. SVD68 18 February 2020 16: 17 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  All theories of "de-escalation through nuclear escalation" are extremely dangerous. And they have an unbearable price in the long run.

                  Why are you writing this to me? Have you seen my adherence to the theory of de-escalation through escalation somewhere?
  8. Operator 16 February 2020 21: 37 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Quote: CTABEP
    single launch of an ICBM from Ohio, which is not responded to by the SPRN (single launch, not the time to start the nuclear Apocalypse), multiplying by zero the most likely launching OTRK

    How can a single launch of Trident SLBMs with one 5-Ktn combat unit destroy many, many Yars-type PGRKs or Iskander-type PTRKs — are they moving around in places of their deployment? laughing

    And where will the other 150-ktn and 485-ktn BB, also located on the same SLBM, fly to their home? laughing

    And the SPRN works for us on the principle: "once not .........."? (FROM) laughing
    1. CTABEP 16 February 2020 22: 09 New
      • 1
      • 5
      -4
      You read inattentively, I repeat again. No need to destroy a lot = a lot of Yars PTGRK or all of the Russian missile brigades. Here 99% for some reason do not understand the meaning of this equipment, which the Americans mean. This is the RESPONSE to the application of tactical nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation. Those. Russian aggression against Latvia (very unlikely), a tank counter-strike of the NATO division (well, the probability is already higher, but also somehow dubious) and in the response of crazy Russians - a tactical warhead strike from, for example, Iskander against NATO’s unfolding order ( well, or on the line of defense). The Russian Federation clearly does not want to discharge all of its 1500 warheads in the United States, the United States also does not have a desire to arrange a nuclear Apocalypse, in Europe there are no tactical warheads in the reach of a symmetrical response (and if there are, free-falling bombs, which, for lack of B-2 at bases in Europe does not want to use, because it takes a long time, and there is too much probability of a carrier being shot down by air defense systems of the Russian Federation before the bomb is dropped) The answer is that we burn the Trident with 2-3 warheads of 5-ct each, the SPRN doesn’t react (well, we hope there are no maniacs in the Strategic Missile Forces), so the same tactics in the amount of 2-3 pieces fall somewhere on the Russian troops, "adequate answer ", peace talks, all things. Without the ability to respond with tactical nuclear weapons (and this possibility is really small - we have nuclear warheads at the OTRK in Europe, and NATO has only free-falling bombs, which, without suppressing air defense or at least expensive B-2s, are somehow not very will fly into our anti-aircraft defense zone), the United States is making a strange hybrid between strategic nuclear forces and nuclear weapons. Not from a good life, but not from stupidity.
      1. Operator 16 February 2020 22: 52 New
        • 2
        • 6
        -4
        We do not care that someone doesn’t have something - then let them disarm and leave the game. The main thing is that we have everything to eliminate all other countries in the bud wholesale and retail.

        At the moment, Russia has full consensus with the United States, Britain and France on the conduct of a nuclear war at its first stage - only within the European subcontinent without affecting the territory of Russia, Britain and the United States (on the basis of the “escalation for de-escalation” principle). Whether there will be a transition to the second global stage, no one knows.

        This principle was recently reaffirmed in print by an unnamed Pentagon spokesman, who stated that in their view, the future nuclear conflict would be limited to Eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Belarus and Ukraine.
        1. 3danimal 18 February 2020 09: 32 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          You reason in isolation from reality. Will you explain this to your children seconds before death ??
          I repeat: the very thoughts of blackmail in this context are unacceptable.
          1. Operator 18 February 2020 10: 29 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            You have lost orientation:
            - blackmail in the form of the official doctrine of counterforce strike is practiced by the USA;
            - The official doctrine of the Russian Federation provides only a retaliatory strike.

            And what does my children and grandchildren have to do with it, if a nuclear conflict by mutual agreement of the parties will occur outside the borders of the Russian Federation? This should take care of the inhabitants of Europe west of Russia.
            1. 3danimal 18 February 2020 14: 57 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Attacks on the territory of NATO countries (and the United States in particular) mean attacks on us. Do you understand this?
              Or as in that joke “..a for what? ..”?
              1. Operator 18 February 2020 15: 56 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                You carefully read my original comment on February 16th - where did I mention the United States, France and Britain as targets for our strike?

                Or do you assume that after a nuclear strike on Poland or Romania, the Americans will strike a nuclear strike on the Russian Federation? For what reason - all the more so since they recently announced the conduct of a local war only within the borders of Eastern Europe (to implement their escalation plan for de-escalation).
      2. asv363 17 February 2020 02: 14 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: CTABEP
        Russia clearly does not want to discharge all of its 1500 warheads in the United States

        According to START-3 (DSNV) - 1550 warheads.
      3. 5-9
        5-9 17 February 2020 12: 29 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The plan is clear, but we have nuclear weapons 6-8 thousand ... they are fashionable - we are 20, they are 20 to us - we are 400 ... and so we will win .... we are talking about the use of all kinds of limitrophies on the territory of course ... . at 5 kT on Trident is certainly better, free-falling B61, which you can’t reach the target ...
    2. CTABEP 16 February 2020 22: 10 New
      • 0
      • 5
      -5
      And the SPRN works for us on the principle: "once not .........."? (C) laughing


      Namely, if they worked according to the principle of “one-shot we beat everyone in response”, the world would have burned out at least three times in a nuclear apocalypse, fortunately the officers responsible for this business wanted war less than commentators on forums;)
      1. Operator 16 February 2020 22: 22 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        You confuse the SPRN with the Strategic Missile Forces - the first detects all, without exception, launches of foreign missiles in our and not our direction, and the second works strictly on the command of the senior management or the "Dead Hand" (if activated).

        When launching a single missile with one warhead with the completion of the flight path somewhere in the taiga, no one will bother with the push of a red button, but after a nuclear explosion of even 5 kiloton power the Russian leadership will clearly ask what it was and the answer will be unpredictable for the initiator of a single launch, for example, as an invitation to launch a preventive missile launch in the United States

        Does the US need this?
  9. SovietUnit 17 February 2020 04: 34 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    It’s time for the natives of this site to finally start working! Received a pension at working age and sit write nonsense. Work gentlemen, parasites!
  10. Cottodraton 17 February 2020 05: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You can take miniature warheads the size of a 152mm shell and cram them 50-100 into each warhead, call it "corn" and ... let them intercept
  11. Hermit21 17 February 2020 10: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The American strategic nuclear forces are based on Ohio-type nuclear submarines, each of which carries up to 24 UGM-133A Trident II (D5) solid-fuel three-stage ballistic missiles.

    20. According to START-3, 4 mines on each submarine are filled with concrete, and communications to them are dismantled.
    Yes, and weapons in the face of the Soviet liquid R-29 can hardly be called modern.

    R-29RMU-2 and R-29RMU-2.1 look at the author with bewilderment.
    The real alternative to them could be the “Bulava” that is not being manufactured now, but the R-39UTTX.

    These are the 90-ton fools who had to build huge double-hulled monsters? No, thanks
  12. Tektor 17 February 2020 11: 15 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    A stone flower will not come out of the Yankees. Their bluff is designed to intimidate the top leadership of Russia. Those. the game begins, who will frighten whom. Not those ran into. We also need to get a scarecrow: like, say that the Poseidons can control the movement of Ohio from deployment bases.
  13. 5-9
    5-9 17 February 2020 12: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    can have up to eight W88 blocks of 455 kilotons, up to fourteen W76-0 blocks of 100 kilotons

    on paper ... she’s such a paper, she’ll tolerate everything ....
    and so the replacement of the head of a strategic class with a head of tactical power by an adversary can only be welcomed .... as I understand it, the special warheads in the USA go bad and shake with loss of power ...
    Of course, there is a risk of escalation .... I hope that they are only on a solid basis for what .... The meaning of the replacement is to be able to answer Russia at least something when we use nuclear weapons in the territory of 3 countries .... the answer will naturally also be on the territory of the 3rd country ...
  14. KVU-NSVD 17 February 2020 13: 02 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    According to data from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists magazine for 2019, one rocket can have up to eight W88 blocks of 455 kilotons, up to fourteen W76-0 blocks of 100 kilotons (they were decommissioned), or as many W-76-1 blocks 90 kilotons each. For comparison: the new Russian “Bulava” mentioned above carries six (according to other sources, ten) warheads of 150 kilotons each.
    That's how you read about it and you just want to take a shovel for self-dipping the churchyard, and then you remember a cheap brochure "for service" and exhale - a dozen blocks of "weaving" on the nose and hore horror catch up .. although these horror catch up on my full paragraph .. .. Ndaaaa .... But still you have to be objective - about fourteen blocks were just neighing - the Americans are certainly technologically advanced dudes, but to attribute to them shoving the uncanny is too much
  15. evgen81 17 February 2020 16: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In general, this is serious and can achieve their goals. For example: ours win and go on the offensive or use nuclear weapons against the advancing NATO forces. In response, they let e.g. from the Atlantic or from where this missile with the nuclear submarine. Our offensive is stopped. The management does not dare to answer, because knows by whom. Maybe it's not the USA .. maybe the British, the French, whom to shoot at? For everyone? This is a plane with a bomb visible from whose airfield took off .. This is such a rocket.
    1. bk0010 17 February 2020 20: 39 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: evgen81
      Our offensive is stopped.
      5 kT stop the attack? Are you seriously? Normal artillery preparation will have a greater effect than this militaristic masturbation.
      Quote: evgen81
      The management does not dare to answer, because knows by whom. Maybe it's not the USA.
      Generally not our problems: the states have a leader, so they must rake for everyone. Let them follow their own sixes if they want to live.
      1. 3danimal 18 February 2020 09: 44 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Such a criminal approach can have an incredibly high price.
        The problem with all of our Kiselyov’s overheard citizens is that the nuclear war in their imagination (“Kiselev and Co” minded) is an extremely abstract thing “somewhere out there”. Somewhere there the Americans will burn out and “we will win” (well, or to paradise). And they don’t think that we will burn, it’s the few survivors that we will have to look for loved ones under the rubble. Few people think about personal sacrifices for themselves.
        Let me remind you that Mr. Kiselyov will most likely survive somewhere in his personal bunker away from his native coast.
        1. bk0010 18 February 2020 20: 30 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I live in Moscow. 20 minutes after the start of a nuclear war, I instantly evaporate. This version of the war is much easier for me than the next world war, where I will have to die with a bunch of unnecessary special effects.
          1. 3danimal 19 February 2020 11: 23 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I noticed that people who reason in this way often do not have a family and children, respectively, and no responsibility for anyone.
      2. evgen81 18 February 2020 12: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And if it has 14 nuclear warheads of 5kt each? This is serious.
        1. bk0010 18 February 2020 20: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The radius of strong destruction (less against troops - not serious) from 5 kT will be about a kilometer. KVO 0.5 km (Trident is far from MX). The distance between the cars in the camp convoy is 50 m. 14 attempts ... Something is not very impressive. At the same time, this will take as much plutonium as full-fledged (20 times more powerful) 14 hits, plus ICBMs (and, most likely, plus nuclear submarines, since it opened and launched a rocket).
          1. agond 19 February 2020 00: 27 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            It would be better to place ballistic missiles not in mines in the interior of the country, but in containers lying on the bottom of the sea, close to their shores at depths of 30 to 200 m, and pop-up from the bottom for launch, this solution offers many advantages.
            1 efficiency, the container with the rocket is easy to deliver to the base
            2 the location of the container, in principle, cannot be determined from a satellite or aircraft with the accuracy necessary for hitting, and most likely can’t be determined at all if you look for it by strangers under the nose of the guard.
            3 easy to change container position if necessary
            4 insignificant distances of the container from the coast make it much easier to give a command to launch a rocket, compared with communication with a submarine
            5 the cost of manufacturing a container is much less than the cost of building a protected mine
            There is only one minus, this is ice off our sea coasts in winter, but if this problem is somehow solved for Mace, then you can find a way for the container.
  16. silver_roman 19 February 2020 00: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I wonder why this like at all? not even so: why can't ash be brought to condition? Or will it still be a modified ash tree? then why change the name? at least outwardly apl are similar and probably take common visual traits from the pike
    1. agond 19 February 2020 09: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: agond
      There is only one minus, this is ice off our sea coasts in winter, but if this problem is somehow solved for Mace, then you can find a way for the container.
      Reply Qi

      Imagine an underwater container, a double-walled cylinder (in the gap between ballast) 40m by 3.5m, weight 350 t, for a Sarmat missile that lies at the bottom of the sea lying at a depth of about 150 m, After the command to start, the container is from the prone position will go into a standing position at the bottom, then a special powder accelerator will make it float with acceleration, at the very surface the ascent rate
      reaches 10 m / s, and the ice is broken by a blow from below ... and that's it, and the problem of launching from the pold has been solved ... but the problem of detecting it from space and there is no pold.