Military Review

Trident versus Mace. Different but equal?

113

Rocket launch UGM-133A Trident II


Russia and the United States have developed strategic nuclear forces (SNF) with a full-fledged naval component. A key element of the latter are submarine ballistic missiles (SLBMs). The latest examples of this kind are the Russian product R-30 “Bulava” and the American UGM-133A Trident II (D5). These missiles are seriously different from each other, but have the same value for the national defense of the two countries.

Old american rocket


The development of the future UGM-133A started in the early seventies and was seriously delayed. It was possible to complete the tests of the finished product only in the late eighties, and in 1990 the missile officially entered service. The main customer of SLBM Trident II (Trident-2) became the US Navy. Also missiles entered service with Great Britain. The deployment of missiles was carried out on SSBNs of two types of American and British construction.

The UGM-133A is a three-stage solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile. The product has a length of 13,5 m with a diameter of 2,1 m and a starting weight of more than 59 tons. Guidance is achieved through inertial and satellite navigation with astro correction.

The casting weight of Trident II reaches 2800 kg. Separating warhead (RGC) can carry individual warheads (BB) of the individual type W88 (475 ct) or W76 (100 ct) - 8 and 14 units, respectively. However, missiles do not carry full ammunition to improve other characteristics. Last year, the production of the W76-2 unit with a capacity of not more than 5-7 kt was launched to solve special problems.


American SSBN USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) type Ohio. Photo: USNavy / Wikimedia.org

At full combat load, the UGM-133A shows a firing range of 7800 km. The maximum range obtained by reducing the number of warheads is 11300 km. Probable circular deviation - up to 90 m, depending on the guidance method.

New Russian product


Work on the Russian missile system based on the R-30 Bulava SLBM started in the late nineties, and already in 2004 the first tests took place. In September 2005, the first full-scale shooting was carried out. By the beginning of the tenth years, production was prepared, and production of serial missiles began. However, the order of adoption was issued only in June 2018.

“Bulava” - a three-stage solid-fuel ballistic missile with the possibility of carrying RGCH IN and means to overcome missile defense. The length of the rocket is 12,1 m with a diameter of 2 m. Launch weight is 36,8 tons. The cast weight is estimated at 1100-1200 kg. Control systems include inertial navigation aids made on the basis of modern components.

According to various sources, the P-30 carries from 6 to 10 BB individual guidance. The power of these products is estimated at 100-150 ct. There is information about the development of warheads with the ability to maneuver on the trajectory. Together with warheads, the missile carries false targets and other means of overcoming missile defense. The maximum firing range reaches 9300 km. Accuracy indicators are not known, but unofficial sources claim that the KVO does not exceed 90-100 m.

Media Question


The US marine strategic component includes 14 Ohio SSBNs. In the past, there were 18, but 4 ships were converted into carriers of cruise missiles. The oldest of the Ohio combat boats entered the Navy in 1984. The latter has been in service since 1997.


USS Wyoming SSBN deck covers (SSBN-742). Photo: Rebecca Rebarich, US Navy

The Ohio missile launcher holds 24 silo launchers for the UGM-133A missiles. Thus, the U.S. Navy can simultaneously put out to sea up to 336 SLBMs of the Trident II type. The maximum number of warheads is from 2688 to 4704. However, the terms of the existing treaties allow deploying no more than 1500 BB. It is also necessary to take into account that the Ohio do not go on patrol at the same time as an entire group.

The main ally of the United States, Great Britain in 1993-1999. commissioned four Vanguard SSBNs. Such ships carry 16 missiles each - up to a total of 64. At the same time, there are quite strict restrictions on the number of warheads.

The real carrier missiles of the R-30 SLBMs are strategic missile submarines of strategic design, pr. 955 Borey. To date, three such ships have been built and put into service by the Navy. The fourth, built on pr. 955A, recently completed state tests and will soon be handed over the fleet. Four more new SSBNs are at various stages of construction.

Borey submarines of all types have 16 mines for Bulava missiles. Thus, at present they can deliver to the patrol areas only 48 missiles with 288-480 warheads. In the coming months, such fleet capabilities will grow, but even after that, the quantitative indicators of the Boreev and Bulav will remain limited.


RPKSN TK-208 "Dmitry Donskoy" pr. 941UM - an experienced carrier of SLBM R-30

However, one should not worry about the potential of the marine component of the Russian strategic nuclear forces. Until a sufficient number of Boreevs have been built, the main work in this area rests with the older SSBNs, Project 667BDR Kalmar and 667BDRM Dolphin. Now there are six such ships in service, each of which carries 16 SLBMs of the R-29RM family. Over the next few years, the Dolphins will maintain the status of the basis of the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces, but then they will give way to the Boreas.

Trident versus Mace


Of great interest is the comparison of two modern SLBMs of the leading nuclear powers. A simple comparison of tabular data can lead to unambiguous conclusions, but not so simple.

From the point of view of the main indicators - the maximum range and the cast weight - the American rocket looks the clear leader. However, it cannot send all 2,8 tons of payload to the ultimate range of 11,3 thousand km. The Russian Bulava has more modest indicators, but it is not yet clear how the maximum values ​​of its characteristics are combined. The firing accuracy is comparable, which allows to obtain close results of blows.

The situation with military equipment looks interesting; moreover, it is complicated by the lack of accurate data. BB nomenclature for Trident II is probably a little wider, and in addition, it includes more powerful products. A low-power W76-2 charge has also been developed for special tasks.


Submarine Alexander Nevsky and his crew

A Russian missile carries up to 10 blocks with a capacity of up to 100-150 ct. Given current trends and in combination with achievable accuracy, this is enough to defeat typical SLBM targets. An important feature of the Mace is the modern anti-missile defense countermeasures system, which increases the likelihood of successful passage of warheads to targets. At the same time, it is possible to equip the R-30 with a full set of warheads without the risk of exceeding the established limits.

According to known data, the Bulava has the advantage of increased resistance to missile defense even at the initial stage of flight. Like other modern Russian ICBMs, the R-30 is distinguished by improved engine power and a shorter active area — up to 3-4 times in comparison with its predecessors. Accordingly, the time for the reaction of an enemy missile defense operating on take-off ICBMs is reduced. As far as we know, the older Trident has a “normal” flight profile.

The most important advantage of UGM-133A SLBMs is their potential and actual numbers provided by carriers. The US Navy has 14 Ohio-class submarines and can deploy a large number of SLBMs and BB. This opportunity is actively used, and in recent years, the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces accounted for at least half of all deployed combat units.


"Prince Vladimir" - the first representative of the improved project 955A

Russian indicators of this kind are much more modest, even taking into account the older R-29RM missiles. However, this is due to a different approach to the formation of strategic nuclear forces. Our nuclear forces rely mainly on ground-based missiles. They account for the bulk of deployed BB.

Customer requirements


Considering modern SLBMs of leading countries, it is necessary to take into account one of the most important factors - the customer’s views when forming tactical and technical requirements (TTT) for the future arms.

TTTs for the promising UGM-133A were formed more than 40 years ago, and the finished missile entered service in 1990. Since then, the military-political situation has changed, some old threats have disappeared, but new ones have appeared. To meet the new requirements and wishes of the military, it is necessary to modernize the existing SLBMs - with the known limitations of such processes.

R-30 “Mace” was created later, and the customer took into account all modern and future threats, needs, limitations of contracts, etc. Thus, this SLBM more fully complies with current requirements and takes into account modern views on defense in general and the role of the naval component of strategic nuclear forces in particular. This can explain the significant difference in the characteristics of the Mace and previous domestic missiles, as well as the difference from the American Trident.


Start of the "Mace" from the board of "Prince Vladimir", October 30, 2019

However, it cannot be ruled out that certain technological limitations affected the characteristics of the finished R-30. The development and production of this missile was not preceded by a very simple period, which seriously hit science and industry. In the absence of such problems, TTTs for promising SLBMs might look different.

Different but equal?


In terms of performance characteristics, the modern SLBMs of Russia and the USA are seriously different. The UGM-133A Trident II has advantages in a number of parameters, but in others the P-30 Bulava shows itself better. With all this, both models are in service and ensure the strategic security of their states.

The fact that the Bulava and the Trident are in service and cannot be replaced, although modernization is being carried out, directly indicates compliance with the requirements of the operators and existing strategies. Accordingly, the two SLBMs under consideration are equally good within the framework of the defense doctrines of their countries and are suitable for solving the tasks posed. And these factors are far more important than total kilometers and kilograms.
Author:
Photos used:
Russian Ministry of Defense / mil.ru, US Navy, Bmpd.livejournal.com
113 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NAVIAVI
    NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 05: 29 New
    0
    Come on you.
    There, in addition to the eternally raw "Bulava", problems for tonsils.
    What Klimov constantly writes about.

    https://mina030.livejournal.com/24483.html
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Bar1
      Bar1 26 May 2020 10: 38 New
      +1
      the first Borey looked distinctive, the tilt of the wheelhouse forward, no one did so, and on the second they abandoned their originality and made an influx on Amer’s boats from below, which looks worse, but in American style.
  2. NAVIAVI
    NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 05: 37 New
    -5
    And what about the rocket, so it has already been discussed.

    https://shoehanger.livejournal.com/444008.html

    "Nevsky fired at the exit with a specially prepared factory rocket. Then he left. Upon arrival in Vilyuch, a group from the factory worked. One person from there, in his words. The error is the technical gap between the missile and the container. The width is about the palm of your hand. More precisely, the lack of this gap. Either reduce the diameter of the rocket, or increase the container. But it does not increase, the size of the boat shaft end-to-end. The reason is the lack of experience and not taking into account the influence of the aquatic environment.
    While there were throwing in the surface, everything is OK. (2003,2004). When they started from underwater 2005 and 20006, problems arose. The difference in pressure at the exit-release of the rocket. The corps walked beyond TU. The refusals. Then the corps began to lead. They tried to re-arrange some of the devices inside. This is the period when it was planned to transfer the production of the rocket from Votkinskiy to another manufacturer. This is in 2009. But they convinced the NGS that they could handle it themselves.
    In Vilyuchinsk, factory workers tested the idea of ​​changing the pressure on a missile’s release from a powder source, or from a powder accumulator. I did not understand this.
    Chel said that the idea was bad, but they were sent. They were there for half a year. Then they left. His resume is a guarantee that the rocket will come out normally and reach where it should be, they give 70 percent ..... If you shoot from the surface, then about 90. "
    1. Fizik M
      Fizik M 25 May 2020 07: 39 New
      +4
      I repeat
      I believe that the shooting of Bulava from the Pacific Fleet this year will be, and with a probability of "four nines" - successful
      however, this does not change the problems of Bulava
      1. NAVIAVI
        NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 09: 33 New
        -4
        I think they’ll write to me. All the same, aviation will provide.
        Maybe even a photo will be thrown.
        Although five years already weary :-) Scary.
      2. KCA
        KCA 25 May 2020 10: 28 New
        -1
        In fact, on October 30, 2019, they successfully shot from the underwater, they showed on TV and there are a lot of videos on the Internet
        1. NAVIAVI
          NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 11: 17 New
          0
          Where, what rocket and in what conditions.
          No need to mix facies and honey.
          They did not shoot from the Pacific Fleet Bulava. For five years "Nevsky" has been sitting there. Sometimes he comes out to play catch-up.
          I did not shoot, I did not go to the BS.
          Rockets of the first series are packed on "Nevsky". Until revisions. It is dangerous to shoot them.
          They no longer shout about it, but scream. And you all in somnambulistic delirium broadcast their visions about comparing Trident and Mace.
          1. KCA
            KCA 25 May 2020 11: 26 New
            0
            Which "Nevsky", which Pacific Fleet? What are you talking about? Flight of thought? I mean "Vladimir":
            https://rg.ru/2019/10/30/atomnaia-podlodka-kniaz-vladimir-vpervye-vystrelila-raketoj-bulava.html
            1. NAVIAVI
              NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 11: 34 New
              0
              “I write what I see, what I don’t see I don’t write” (c). I served at the Pacific Fleet, which I am broadcasting about.
              Do you know the cherished word "show"?
              1. sgrabik
                sgrabik 26 May 2020 10: 48 New
                -2
                Who did they deign to serve, not really the commander of a submarine ??? And then, after all, now there are a dime a dozen of such sofa "experts", and everyone is so well informed that you simply wonder why they personally report everything in detail directly from the Ministry of Defense ???
                1. NAVIAVI
                  NAVIAVI 26 May 2020 19: 46 New
                  +3
                  Strange you :-)
                  My VUS was "Planning and Management of the Fleet."
                  Who else but me should be aware of?
                  Here on the site already laid out.
                  1. NAVIAVI
                    NAVIAVI 27 May 2020 08: 13 New
                    0
                    A hundred times discussed.
                    The point is not only in the rocket, but in the quantity of their delivery and the "density" of the use of forces.
                    CON.
                    They had it higher. Optimistically by a third, pessim.-In half.
                    During the union they took the number and inhuman tension of forces. Pig conditions of service, let’s say so.
                    1. NAVIAVI
                      NAVIAVI 27 May 2020 08: 15 New
                      0
                      Still.
                      How did I do anal belay
                      1. NAVIAVI
                        NAVIAVI 27 May 2020 08: 20 New
                        0
                        For the "Ohio" type, three autonomous units per building per year, each for 90 days, and there were 110 days, it was stressful, but they were delaying.
                        Now two on average. Maybe by the virus am
            2. Fizik M
              Fizik M 25 May 2020 16: 13 New
              +2
              Quote: KCA
              I mean "Vladimir":

              lol
              actually, in decent places it's called "off topic" wink
        2. Fizik M
          Fizik M 25 May 2020 11: 50 New
          +2
          Quote: KCA
          In fact, on October 30, 2019, they successfully shot from the underwater, they showed on TV and there are a lot of videos on the Internet

          do not break the trampoline with zeal
          AT LEAST ONE ROLLER of "Bulava" from the Pacific Fleet will you find?
          1. codetalker
            codetalker 25 May 2020 13: 52 New
            -1
            Why exactly with the Pacific Fleet? The rest does not count? Can you give an example, test / training launches of the BR from the Pacific?
            1. Fizik M
              Fizik M 25 May 2020 16: 05 New
              +1
              Quote: codetalker
              Why exactly with the Pacific Fleet? The rest does not count?

              because there are DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS
              written on the basis of EXPERIENCE
              and they clearly say that these firing MUST be
              acc. if they are not there, it very specifically hints that "something died in the conservatory"

              See the screen below about the salvo launch (by the way at the place of the censors, I would NOT have allowed this to be shown in the media), the salvo launch is a very costly undertaking, and if it is properly organized and properly set up, it is done in such a way as to get the most data from it.
              In our particular case, we were obviously AFRAID TO DO IT, which also "specifically hints" ...
    2. KCA
      KCA 25 May 2020 09: 30 New
      19
      Why are you pulling any nonsense from the Internet? All that concerns the testing and technical condition of the nuclear submarine and "Bulava" - state secrets, for disclosure up to 6 years, with grave consequences up to 7 years, well, treason to the Motherland up to 20, where do the authors of these opuses write? From "Lefortovo" or already from the colony ?? Was Wi-Fi connected to those under investigation in Lefortovo?
      1. Operator
        Operator 25 May 2020 10: 23 New
        -1
        From the White Pillars bully

        From the new information: the old man "Trident-2" crap in full in terms of range with the maximum load (7800 km) compared to the newcomer "Bulava" (9300 km) with a comparable specific weight of combat equipment.

        And as russophobes proceeded on shit - kargokulturisty of all stripes on these indicators.
        1. merkava-2bet
          merkava-2bet 25 May 2020 11: 44 New
          0
          The fact that Trident-2 with a maximum speed shoots at 7800 km, we know this and there are facts, including the official statement of the company itself and the US Navy.
          But what we don’t know is which head has the Mace, that is, the number of BBs, weight, power, accuracy, etc., and most importantly the flight range with a full head.
          So where did you get the data, the namesake brought the forty on the tail. And yes, only officialdom is accepted, without flooding and a chatter of magazines.
          1. Operator
            Operator 25 May 2020 13: 48 New
            -2
            You will poke at your "promised".
          2. forpost
            forpost 28 May 2020 17: 50 New
            -1
            "We know that", "But what we don't know" - who are you? Dohua there?
            1. merkava-2bet
              merkava-2bet 28 May 2020 20: 42 New
              -2
              For those who do not understand the syntax and vocabulary of the great and mighty Russian language, by the way, he is my native language, we mean forum users who read and participate in a fruitful and constructive conversation, and not those individuals who try to seem smart by swearing and swearing.
              And yes, we are legion.
              1. forpost
                forpost 5 June 2020 10: 05 New
                -2
                And right all forum users agree with your opinion or is it an attempt to pass off their opinion as an indisputable truth? Judging by the minuses, you are less than zero
        2. Fizik M
          Fizik M 25 May 2020 11: 49 New
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          From the White Pillars

          belay
          eco YOU ​​pushed lol ... usually YOU wrote from under the white POWDER lol
          YOU are there ... more careful ... take care of yourself
          laughing
      2. NAVIAVI
        NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 11: 29 New
        -5
        No need to pretend to be a holy fool.
        Napoleon: "As soon as a weapon enters the troops, it ceases to be secret."
        In addition, there is an exchange of information, according to the agreements.
        About Lefortovo, he remembered :-)
        Let's talk about the Gulag, why trifle :-)
      3. Fizik M
        Fizik M 25 May 2020 11: 42 New
        -1
        Quote: KCA
        the state of the nuclear submarine and "Bulava" - state secret, for disclosure up to 6 years, with grave consequences

        especially FACT that there has not been a SINGLE launch of Bulava from the Pacific Fleet until now
        YOU when "discussing" the owner wink bed from zeal on smash lol
        1. sgrabik
          sgrabik 26 May 2020 11: 08 New
          -1
          It's just ridiculous to read all this nonsense, what other fact, where this fact came from, that, directly from Min. The defense personally reported this fact to you, or else someone is stubbornly trying to wishful thinking, this is now a favorite method of liberal and pro-Western scribblers !!!
          1. Fizik M
            Fizik M 26 May 2020 16: 58 New
            +2
            Quote: sgrabik
            It's just funny to read all this nonsense.

            fool
            monsieur, nonsense? so take it and "refute" it! why are YOU "spawning" here? - bring AT LEAST ONE FACT OF STARTING "Bulava" from Pacific Fleet!
            1. NAVIAVI
              NAVIAVI 26 May 2020 19: 51 New
              +1
              FSB ear.
              Familiar habits :-) GB fell apart, but the methods are the same.
              You are careful.
              1. Fizik M
                Fizik M 26 May 2020 21: 32 New
                +2
                Quote: NAVIAVI
                FSB ear. Habits familiar

                everything is much more prosaic
                the boy is apparently stupid on MIT's "tugriks" (and "MIT's tugriks" is not a "version", but facts)
            2. forpost
              forpost 28 May 2020 17: 55 New
              -1
              and what not from Indian?
    3. Angelo Provolone
      Angelo Provolone 25 May 2020 10: 44 New
      +2
      The corps walked beyond TU. The refusals. Then the corps began to lead.

      Clear business. I went for a walk, drank, and that’s led the message. He’s such a body ...
    4. Usher
      Usher 25 May 2020 17: 53 New
      -3
      Chel said))) And you believe
      The reason is the lack of experience and not taking into account the influence of the aquatic environment.
      Lack of experience? Do you yourself understand what you are writing?
  3. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 25 May 2020 05: 42 New
    +8
    The trouble is, since the cobbler will start the pies, And the boots will stitch the pastry, And things will not go in the way.
    MIT gnawed the order, and it turned out what happened.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 25 May 2020 08: 14 New
      +6
      Quote: Mikhail M
      The trouble is, since the cobbler will start the pies, And the boots will stitch the pastry, And things will not go in the way.
      MIT gnawed the order, and it turned out what happened.

      Market, his mother. Who has a paw longer, that rowing for themselves. Them. Makeeva has been engaged in SLBMs for a hundred years, although liquid, but the whole specifics of underwater launches of SLBMs, which is called in his own way ..... but against Muscovites .... request Yes, that’s how you say the market, but in my opinion in a capital “B”. angry
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 25 May 2020 10: 48 New
        +7
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Them. Makeeva has been engaged in SLBMs for a hundred years, although liquid, but the whole specifics of underwater launches of SLBMs, which is called in his own way ..... but against Muscovites ....

        It's just that the Navy after R-39 is somehow afraid of a solid-propellant rocket from Makeevtsy. smile
        Not only did the "water carrier" have to be made for this monster, so the Makeyevites also did not fit into the TZ - neither from the first, nor from the second time. They promised to fit in with the third (future "Bark"), but then the Union collapsed.
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 25 May 2020 11: 22 New
          -1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          It's just that the Navy after R-39 is somehow afraid of a solid-propellant rocket from Makeevtsy.

          Well, so they rosette in the hole and swims. repeat
        2. Fizik M
          Fizik M 25 May 2020 11: 45 New
          -5
          Quote: Alexey RA
          It's just that the Navy after the R-39 is somehow afraid of a solid-propellant missile from the Makeyevites. Not only did the "water carrier" have to be made for this monster, so the Makeyevites also did not fit into the TZ - neither from the first, nor from the second time. They promised to fit in with the third (future "Bark"), but then the Union collapsed.

          YOUR avatar is faithful lol
          Only now I will note that in Olgino they keep suckers, and "chocolate hares" are sitting on Nikoloyamskaya, at a well-known address (they won't take YOU there - you jump low lol )
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 25 May 2020 13: 09 New
            +3
            Quote: Fizik M
            Only now I will note that in Olgino they keep suckers, and "chocolate hares" they sit on Nikoloyamskaya, at a well-known address

            Alas for me - I did not find for the avatar a photo of a plate with a famous address on Savushkina. smile
      2. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 25 May 2020 11: 18 New
        +4
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Them. Makeeva has been engaged in SLBMs for a hundred years, though liquid,

        Why, only liquid, and the R-39U rocket, the D-19U complex -?
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 25 May 2020 11: 23 New
          -1
          Quote: Bad_gr
          Why, only liquid, and the R-39U rocket, the D-19U complex

          I agree. Simply, for a long time I did not pick up checkers. repeat
  4. NAVIAVI
    NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 06: 03 New
    -1
    By the way, Klimov had an article about the aforementioned "Nevsky" and Tankovid.
    "G. Tonkovid, holiday is a holiday, but why lie to society?"
    Surname, he really is inaccurate.
    https://mina030.livejournal.com/20459.html?thread=131307#t131307
    And to the question "Why do not boats go to the BS and there has not been a single shooting from the Pacific Fleet in 5 years," no one answered.
    Although almost at every exit to the BS 667BDR they shot at Chizham.
    Shooting, checking and autonomous.

    Although judging by the comments "Nevsky" tried to go.




    1. asv363
      asv363 25 May 2020 08: 38 New
      +3
      Valentin, are we discussing an article on VO or LJ Klimova MA?
      1. NAVIAVI
        NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 09: 36 New
        +4
        Any information requires rechecking. At least the number of sources. Klimov and I have mutual acquaintances who are ready to vouch for his competence and decency.
        I do not know the author of the article, I did not serve with him .... Is it available?
  5. codetalker
    codetalker 25 May 2020 06: 24 New
    0
    The idea is periodically expressed that no simulations or tests can be compared with real experience in combat use. From this point of view, the “routine” of reasoning / comparisons / predictions related to strategic nuclear forces looks very interesting. I caught myself thinking while reading an article :)
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 25 May 2020 08: 19 New
    -1
    Everyone pounced on the Mace. How many Tridents do you think will come out of the mines? Really did not think? There will always be problems. The strength of the missiles is not in reliability, but in the fact that they are there and the enemy has no desire to check the truth whether they write in the media?
    1. smaug78
      smaug78 25 May 2020 08: 40 New
      -3
      How many Tridents do you think will come out of the mines?
      so tell us how many Tridents and which mines will not work ...
      1. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 25 May 2020 08: 44 New
        +1
        God forbid to check it, as well as for the Mace.
        You just don’t need to water the Mace, as if the USA is doing great.
      2. dzvero
        dzvero 25 May 2020 11: 37 New
        +3
        But no one knows how much the Americans did not carry a full salvo of Trident. The same is true for the Mace.
      3. +5
        +5 25 May 2020 12: 21 New
        -5
        Recently I went out, but immediately fell .... it happens ...
      4. sgrabik
        sgrabik 26 May 2020 11: 46 New
        -1
        This will become clear only when, in a combat situation, these missiles are launched from their mines, it is not possible to foresee everything completely in advance and failures are quite likely not only from our side, but also from the American one !!!
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 25 May 2020 08: 42 New
      +4
      Today JSC “Academician V. P. Makeev State Missile Center” JSC (GREC Makeev JSC) is the lead developer of strategic solid-fuel and liquid missile systems with ballistic missiles designed for installation on submarines.
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      Everyone pounced on the Mace.
      Well, the Mace cannot fly, as God put it, it does not have wings.
      According to numerous experts, including foreign ones, Sineva is recognized as the best underwater missile in the world.
      And "Sineva" is everywhere, even for 11500 km
      .Total specialists of the GRTs im. Makeev was assembled about 4 thousand serial naval missiles, more than 1200 missiles were shot, the success of launches was more than 96%.
      what
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 25 May 2020 14: 47 New
        12
        The former director of Krasmash Viktor Kirillovich Gupalov was buried last week. He headed the company for 30 years. Hero of Socialist Labor, State Prize Laureate, Professor. Under him, the D-9, D-9R were adopted, the D-9RM appeared "Sineva" with "Liner". He did not let the plant be destroyed, although there were many attempts. We can say that thanks to him, KRASMASH is still working and "Sarmat", albeit with a creak, is moving. After him, the directors have already changed 4 times. He was the head of my diploma in the 90s, when two more colleagues and I were getting a second education ... And nowhere in the media is anything. I think it was a person of Makeev's level. He once had a chief engineer Anatoly Mikhailovich Vaganov, who before that was Makeev's deputy. An entire era is leaving ...
        1. Fizik M
          Fizik M 25 May 2020 16: 06 New
          +3
          well they wrote, I will try to fix this thing
        2. Fizik M
          Fizik M 25 May 2020 16: 19 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey NM
          Last week Viktor Kirillovich Gupalov, the former director of KRASMASH, was buried. He headed the company for 30 years. Hero of Socialist Labor, laureate of state award, professor

          pager look
        3. sgrabik
          sgrabik 26 May 2020 12: 00 New
          +1
          And our renowned designers and leaders of defense enterprises are being replaced by newly-minted "effective managers" who are absolutely illiterate in technical and technological plans, but they know well where and how to save money at the expense of quality and manufacturability in the production of such extremely important and complex products. and especially this economy is aimed at replenishing their personal ambitions and wide pockets, the security issues of our state are of little interest to them !!!
    3. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 25 May 2020 09: 23 New
      +4
      Much will come out of the Trident mines. Without a doubt. The Americans are shooting at 5-8 Tridents a year, and since 1987 they have already shot at 200 missiles, there seem to be no particular problems. We seem to have 5-7 launches a year, but because of the zoo of missiles it’s actually one type of missile per year, so we’ll have worse statistics in case of war.
      http://www.planet4589.org/space/lvdb/launch/Trident2
      1. 9PA
        9PA 25 May 2020 13: 49 New
        0
        There the super series goes on accident-free launches. 115 chtoli
  8. asv363
    asv363 25 May 2020 08: 23 New
    +5
    However, the terms of existing contracts allow you to deploy no more 1500 BB.

    Dear author, the limit on the number of BBs according to START-3 (START) is 1550 pcs.
  9. smaug78
    smaug78 25 May 2020 08: 39 New
    -3
    Malicious article. The difference between the products is 28 years old, and the author has "all is well beautiful marquise" ....
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 25 May 2020 09: 33 New
      -5
      Quote: smaug78
      Malicious article. The difference between the products is 28 years old, and the author has "all is well beautiful marquise" ....

      Well, why so cool. Simply, you need to make excuses that Kaka does not fly. The BRTT was initially inferior to the BRT in all its characteristics, but the start-up preparation time was minimal. Stored in curb form.
      the Americans immediately chose the BRTT for the submarine, although, although they have a low% of successful launches. The principle is to quickly throw rockets, let half of them fall into the ocean. At the initial stage of the arms race, it took place. And then there were restrictions on the number of missiles and arrived. Ours were also forced to plunge into kaku, to catch up with the development of the BRTT. A grandiose cut of the dough, under the motto "Not worse than theirs."
      BRZhT (actually BRZhD - as an engine, but for a similar designation T) "Sineva" deviation from the target - up to 500 m,
      R-29RMU2 "Sineva" has a launch range from 8300 to 11 500 km, depending on the combat load. A missile can carry up to 10 individual guidance warheads with a power of 100 kt each, or 4 units with a power of 500 kt each with enhanced anti-missile defense systems. The circular probable deviation of these missiles is 250 meters. The R-29RMU2 “Sineva” marine rocket and its development, the R-29RMU2.1 “Liner”, are superior in energy-weighted perfection (technical level) to all modern rockets in the USA, China, Great Britain and France without exception, the Makeev’s GRC official website notes. Their use can make it possible to extend the operation of strategic nuclear submarines of Project 667BDRM Dolphin until 2030.
      BRTT does not have and will not have stability of rocket launches; during storage, fuel blocks can crack, deform, or lag behind the internal surface of the engine, depending on the mechanics. Now there are no more processes of spontaneous combustion and decomposition, the stabilizers swell and thereby reduce the fuel TX.
      1. KCA
        KCA 25 May 2020 10: 35 New
        0
        Actually, this was done not to "like them", but in order to unify and, accordingly, reduce the cost, "Topol", "Topol-M", "Yars", "Bulava", probably, "Yars-S", have fundamentally the same design with a large number of identical elements
        1. Fizik M
          Fizik M 25 May 2020 11: 46 New
          +1
          Quote: KCA
          Actually, this was done not to "like them", but in order to unify and, accordingly, reduce the cost, "Topol", "Topol-M", "Yars", "Bulava", probably, "Yars-S", have fundamentally the same design with a large number of identical elements

          fool
      2. +5
        +5 25 May 2020 12: 34 New
        -1
        For solid fuels, they have shorter AUTs - they start faster, lower the probability of a missile defense defeat in the form of Standard-3
        1. Fizik M
          Fizik M 25 May 2020 13: 38 New
          +2
          Quote: 5-9
          For solid fuels, they have shorter AUTs - they start faster, lower the probability of a missile defense defeat in the form of Standard-3

          this is an absolutely moronic excuse from MIT and its hangers-on
          for if standards can work on BRs, then CARRIERS are not residents
          those. the "model of application and effectiveness" itself is wrong, and it is simply necessary to exclude the situation when the ballistic missiles can operate from the ranges of the Standard
          1. +5
            +5 25 May 2020 14: 13 New
            0
            Well, the Americans about the SM-3 ranges got into some kind of crazy about the size and mass of the range missiles. On the other hand, the Mk57 is bigger and the rocket can be made bigger, the Mace is not done for 10 years ....
            1. NAVIAVI
              NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 15: 20 New
              0
              Yes they all shine :-)
              And they were not on the Moon, and Musk brechet and their new station was made of cardboard. By the way, I wonder if the 27th will fly or not?
              And the middle class they have 17 thousand, but not rubles.
              ))) "This is me being naughty ... that is, I'm playing about" (c)
          2. Andrey NM
            Andrey NM 25 May 2020 15: 05 New
            +8
            I have written here more than once about Bulava.
            In the dashing 90s, the Americans sponsored the disposal of everything that did not suit them. At the end of the 90s, the senior representative of the customer from the URAV of the Navy received a letter in Krasnoyarsk to justify the impossibility of further production of 3M-37 and the need to close the enterprise. The officer had the intelligence and courage to gather meetings at the allied enterprises and the head office and prepare documents on the readiness of enterprises for further work and send these documents over his head. As a result, the modernized "Sineva" and "Liner" appeared, and the enterprise is working. If not for the director of KRASMASH V.K. and not a senior military representative, we would have had no liquid-propellant missiles for 20 years, especially the Sineva.
            In 1998, a company consisting of Urinson, Dvorkin, Solomonov, Sergeev and Kuroyedov began to move around the Bulava. The land office began to design marine products. Financing was taken away from the Makeev Design Bureau and they began to sculpt. As a result, the rocket flew only after the Makeyevites joined the work. Relatively recently in the media there was information about the order from the Makeyevites to develop a new product for submarines. With an almost equal mass with the Sineva, the Bulava has a lower payload mass and flight range.

            Both "solid" products and "liquid" products have their positive and negative sides. Everywhere there should be a golden mean and no need to rush from one extreme to another.
            1. sgrabik
              sgrabik 26 May 2020 12: 13 New
              0
              There’s even nothing to add, or rather you won’t say, everything is so !!!
          3. bk0010
            bk0010 25 May 2020 19: 22 New
            0
            this is an absolutely moronic excuse from MIT and its hangers-on
            Replace Standard with Thaad, will it become relevant? The active site is now being reduced.
            1. Fizik M
              Fizik M 25 May 2020 21: 52 New
              +1
              Quote: bk0010
              Replace Standard with Thaad, will it become relevant?

              on land it's uncritical
              for 1 BR = 1 carrier
              but on the sea, alas ...
              see my article here (in VO) on the Arctic
        2. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 25 May 2020 14: 33 New
          0
          Quote: 5-9
          For solid fuels, they have shorter AUTs - they start faster, lower the probability of a missile defense defeat in the form of Standard-3

          1.Solid fuel shorter than aut - bad, ballistic trajectory, shortage of speed and range.
          2.sharper start - bad, hit the mine and submarines.
          3.lower chance of missile defense - the probability increases, the possibility of maneuver decreases.
          and in general in TT a lot of muck is stuffed, stabilizers, phlegmatizers, plasticizers, etc. reducing specific impulse.
          1. Usher
            Usher 25 May 2020 17: 58 New
            -2
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            Quote: 5-9
            For solid fuels, they have shorter AUTs - they start faster, lower the probability of a missile defense defeat in the form of Standard-3

            1.Solid fuel shorter than aut - bad, ballistic trajectory, shortage of speed and range.
            2.sharper start - bad, hit the mine and submarines.
            3.lower chance of missile defense - the probability increases, the possibility of maneuver decreases.
            and in general in TT a lot of muck is stuffed, stabilizers, phlegmatizers, plasticizers, etc. reducing specific impulse.

            fool Can you read?
    2. Usher
      Usher 25 May 2020 17: 57 New
      -1
      Quote: smaug78
      Malicious article. The difference between the products is 28 years old, and the author has "all is well beautiful marquise" ....

      Sorry, they didn't ruin the country. Would the USSR still be launched in the series "Bark" before the 2000s.
  10. d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 25 May 2020 09: 12 New
    0
    Recently, I began to suspect that Minya is not lying. Problems with missiles and carriers. The Americans passed this stage 40 years ago.
    1. NAVIAVI
      NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 09: 42 New
      0
      It's not about Mina.
      Occam's razor.
      If the animal looks like a cat, purrs like a cat, meows like a cat .... then this is definitely not a turtle. :-)
      There is no other explanation for the 20-year-old fairy tales about "Bulava".
    2. zwlad
      zwlad 25 May 2020 09: 44 New
      -1
      Are ours worse? And ours will pass.
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 25 May 2020 10: 38 New
        -1
        Quote: zwlad
        Are ours worse? And ours will pass.

        Americans went out the window, broke arms and legs, healed. But we are worse, we also want to break everything, so we broke it. fool
        1. zwlad
          zwlad 25 May 2020 11: 58 New
          -2
          and you first try to develop something new and then bring to serial production at our factories. and then tell how much it took time and how much what was stated in Tech. you did the job. hi
          1. Fizik M
            Fizik M 25 May 2020 13: 36 New
            +5
            I personally (including "very informally") are familiar with a very large number of chief designers, incl. The main ones are with a BIG letter. Alas, this is not all. There is also ... "the product is afraid of water because" water " [marine tests] afraid of his chief designer "
            And on the basis of the experience and results of the Main (with a capital letter) I can say with confidence that it is quite possible to do the topic within the specified timeframe and means, successfully passing the tests, even in our "zoo".
            One of those from whom I learned this, the Mayevki Group of Companies, was simply FIRED.
            And the real reason for this is that the man worked for the RESULT, and this is very "prickly" for those who are used to "work" for the "PROCESS"
  11. Maks1995
    Maks1995 25 May 2020 09: 40 New
    -1
    uh ... The open characteristics are better than the UGM-133A Trident II years ago, but in the classified ones that the author does not know is the new Mace. ??? And so they are equal.
    Good article! with TTX, and not just water on wood.
  12. Angelo Provolone
    Angelo Provolone 25 May 2020 11: 26 New
    0
    Trident versus Mace. Different but equal?


    let's better see the cartoon
    Who is the Mace, and who is the trident? make bets.

  13. Fizik M
    Fizik M 25 May 2020 12: 44 New
    +5
    about volley

    It is noteworthy that both shafts are located near the mid-frame of the rplnSN, while for testing it would be most useful to look and check the volley from the shafts farthest from it (because in this case the boat receives the greatest disturbances that can lead to exit for NUS (initial launch conditions) missile weapons complex).
    There is an assumption that they were afraid to shoot in such a (complicated) way, to put it mildly.
    https://mina030.livejournal.com/19061.html
  14. iouris
    iouris 25 May 2020 13: 15 New
    0
    The author is not sure. Apparently there are good reasons.
  15. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 25 May 2020 14: 00 New
    +2
    Not equal. Equals are D-5 and Blue. "Bulava" on PN is C-4
  16. Old26
    Old26 25 May 2020 14: 25 New
    +1
    Quote: Mikhail M
    The trouble is, since the cobbler will start the pies, And the boots will stitch the pastry, And things will not go in the way.
    MIT gnawed the order, and it turned out what happened.

    Everything starts for the first time sometime. GRTs also started not with SLBMs, but with the famous "SCAD". Then he took up the SLBM.
    MIT has never dealt with SLBMs (although it has dealt with anti-submarine missiles), but at a certain stage there was cooperation with the GRTs about Bulava (the problem of getting out of the submarine mine). It is another matter that very few such ground-based and test-bench tests were carried out on the Bulava. The submersible stand was not used at all (immediately launches from the "Donskoy"). And the fact that "raw" or "unsuccessful", so not the gods burn the pots. The same Makeevskaya P-39 was put into service almost after 35-40 test launches.
    Now the same SRC is engaged in work that is absolutely unusual for it. Develops a mine ICBM with a launch mass of 1,5-2 times greater than any product he ever created. Let's see how the "Sarmat" will start flying, which has already been announced that it will be put into service next year ...
    1. NAVIAVI
      NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 15: 38 New
      +1
      Thread Tools Old 26
      ..... but on "Bulava" at a certain stage there was cooperation with the GRC (the problem of leaving the mine submarine). It is another matter that very few such ground-based and test-bench tests were carried out on the Bulava. The submersible stand was not used at all (immediately launches from the "Donskoy"). And the fact that "raw" or "unsuccessful", so not the gods burn the pots. The same Makeevskaya P-39 was put into service almost after 35-40 test launches ...



      Well, thanks for noticing.
      I wrote about this.
      The problem arose during underwater launches with real missiles, not MMG.
      And when they got to the bottom of the reason, Oops .... it was too late to admit, so they were dragging out the time while the KB "rearranged the blocks" ...
      Probably a launching demonstration missile will be brought from the factory to Kamchatka.
      "Ruslan"? We'll see how the board sits in Yelizovo. I doubt that the ship will be lucky.
      It will be fun if the rocket is carried by the return flight "Akademik Chersky" ...))) There is a pipe, here is a pipe ....
      1. Usher
        Usher 25 May 2020 18: 02 New
        -3
        Quote: NAVIAVI
        Thread Tools Old 26
        ..... but on "Bulava" at a certain stage there was cooperation with the GRC (the problem of leaving the mine submarine). It is another matter that very few such ground-based and test-bench tests were carried out on the Bulava. The submersible stand was not used at all (immediately launches from the "Donskoy"). And the fact that "raw" or "unsuccessful", so not the gods burn the pots. The same Makeevskaya P-39 was put into service almost after 35-40 test launches ...



        Well, thanks for noticing.
        I wrote about this.
        The problem arose during underwater launches with real missiles, not MMG.
        And when they got to the bottom of the reason, Oops .... it was too late to admit, so they were dragging out the time while the KB "rearranged the blocks" ...
        Probably a launching demonstration missile will be brought from the factory to Kamchatka.
        "Ruslan"? We'll see how the board sits in Yelizovo. I doubt that the ship will be lucky.
        It will be fun if the rocket is carried by the return flight "Akademik Chersky" ...))) There is a pipe, here is a pipe ....

        Do you have fun? What's so funny?
        1. NAVIAVI
          NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 19: 03 New
          0
          When a person repeatedly steps on a rake that the viewer hides from him. But still, in a mystical way, the forehead and the arm meet regularly.
          I'm a spectator, I'm funny.
          Who are you in this situation?
    2. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 25 May 2020 16: 15 New
      +5
      I believe that land-based silo-based ICBMs are somewhat simpler. What is the course, speed, depth of submersion of an underground mine? That's right, none. And you do not need to take into account the roughness of the sea and many more different disturbing influences, underwater section of movement, etc. Ie. start conditions - constant value. And the weight of the product is not so critical, other things being equal. More plays the role of dimensions for delivery to the place of duty and service of the product. The starting coordinates are generally known up to a millimeter. On boats, to eliminate these errors, whole systems work and several officers with subordinate personnel are responsible for their work. There is a bike saying that one of the high leaders of MIT asked the question: "Something I did not understand, but what, does the boat shoot on the move?"
    3. sgrabik
      sgrabik 26 May 2020 12: 29 New
      0
      Yes, with the "Sarmat", then things are going just the same noticeably more successfully and faster than with the "Bulava", so if it was brought to mind as well as the "Sarmat", then it would already be a rocket with 100% reliability and the best TTX.
  17. Usher
    Usher 25 May 2020 18: 00 New
    -7
    Immediately you can see the sent ones, under the guise of their own. begin to screech "everything is gone" "we are fools" "Americans are smart" "we have old stuff" "rockets do not fly." How a certain "Valentin" fussed with his own Klimkin. I read some fakes from the Internet somewhere and scares everyone, like "iksperd".
    1. NAVIAVI
      NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 21: 35 New
      +3
      Nothing I am not "Some")))
      Semenov, who has been banned here many times, is the author of "Non-Tradition" and much more.
      He graduated from flying on IL-38, the last position in the anti-submarine warfare department of the Pacific Fleet headquarters.
      If I’m no longer an expert, then appoint another.)))
      1. Fizik M
        Fizik M 25 May 2020 21: 56 New
        +3
        Quote: NAVIAVI
        If I don’t already go to experts

        "appoint me" laughing
        and we (with you wink ) somehow agree angry
        1. NAVIAVI
          NAVIAVI 25 May 2020 22: 28 New
          -1
          I confirm. Maxim expert!
          I'm just having fun, killing time and teasing different stubborn ones.
          I can’t get it from Kiev. Long away.
      2. Usher
        Usher 27 May 2020 19: 28 New
        0
        Yes, in parallel to me who you are, go show your ChSV in another place. You didn't even understand the point. You stubbornly push your Klimkin that I don't even want to know what kind of subject is, like Rezun or what? "Klimkin then" "Klimkin se" that a wedge of light rested on him?
    2. Fizik M
      Fizik M 25 May 2020 21: 54 New
      0
      Quote: Usher
      Klimkin

      remember the saucepan, Klimkin in 404
      1. Usher
        Usher 27 May 2020 19: 30 New
        +1
        What? Can you write humanly? And where does the saucepan have to do with it? are you this to me Can you read? Read first, then think.
  18. Old26
    Old26 25 May 2020 18: 05 New
    +2
    Quote: Andrew NM
    I believe that land-based silo-based ICBMs are somewhat simpler. What is the course, speed, depth of submersion of an underground mine? That's right, none. And you do not need to take into account the roughness of the sea and many more different disturbing influences, underwater section of movement, etc. Ie. start conditions - constant value. And the weight of the product is not so critical, other things being equal. More plays the role of dimensions for delivery to the place of duty and service of the product. The starting coordinates are generally known up to a millimeter. On boats, to eliminate these errors, whole systems work and several officers with subordinate personnel are responsible for their work. There is a bike saying that one of the high leaders of MIT asked the question: "Something I did not understand, but what, does the boat shoot on the move?"

    Any missile system is a complex mechanism. With regard to the launch, we can only say that the launch of a ground silo is easier than from a submarine. The launched product does not pass through a dense medium, secondly, the movement of the boat plays the role at the moment the rocket leaves the submarine mine, there may also be some problems when crossing the border of two media (I don’t know, but it is possible).
    No one spoke about the criticality of the mass of the product for ICBMs. I wrote only that at the GRTS them. Makeeva NO EXPERIENCE working with products of such a starting mass. Agree that for a mortar launch of a product weighing 1 ton of 50 tons, 100 tons, 150 or 200, not the same PADs are needed at all. GRC has very little experience with this. Throwing Starts Only
    1. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 26 May 2020 06: 14 New
      +3
      Quote: Old26
      I wrote only that at the GRTS them. Makeeva NO EXPERIENCE working with products of such a starting mass

      On the R-39, the PAD weighed about 450 kg, the rocket "started" already in the water after leaving the mine. The crew of Alexander Alekseevich Bogachev in general fired 2 ammunition sets within a year without problems, and Bogachev himself "shot" about 60 pieces. These are no longer throw tests. "Bulava" generally "starts" after leaving the water. And MIT also had no experience in designing such systems. By the way, how were the products for the K-140 SSBN produced? Like PADs were thrown out too. Designed by St. Petersburg KB "Arsenal". As far as I remember, the K-140 was constantly stationed at the pier in Hajiyevo, was assigned to the 31st division. They disposed of missiles by shooting, as in the 941s, but not all came out. In the early 90s, the boat was decommissioned. The complex did not go into production.
      Quote: Old26
      Agree that for a mortar launch of a product weighing 1 ton of 50 tons, 100 tons, 150 or 200, not the same PADs are needed at all.

      As a rule, liquid-propellant rockets "start" in mines, they do not need PADs. The reactive gases are themselves "PADs".
  19. Andrey Vasilievich
    Andrey Vasilievich 25 May 2020 21: 59 New
    -1
    Why Trident, Not Trident?
  20. Old26
    Old26 26 May 2020 01: 13 New
    +4
    Quote: Andrey Vasilievich
    Why Trident, Not Trident?

    Yes, because in Russian the TRIED. But the Ukrainian coat of arms is TRIZUB
  21. vVvAD
    vVvAD 26 May 2020 01: 42 New
    0
    The casting weight of Trident II reaches 2800 kg. Separating warhead (RGC) can carry individual warheads (BB) of the individual type W88 (475 ct) or W76 (100 ct) - 8 and 14 units, respectively.

    Not beating 475x8 = 3800 + the weight of the dilution mechanism, and quite considerable, which is clearly seen from the number of BB W76. There cannot be W88 8 pcs at least while maintaining the same range.
  22. Old26
    Old26 26 May 2020 14: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrew NM
    Quote: Old26
    I wrote only that at the GRTS them. Makeeva NO EXPERIENCE working with products of such a starting mass

    On the R-39, the PAD weighed about 450 kg, the rocket "started" already in the water after leaving the mine.

    Let's figure it out, Andrew.
    SLBM R-39 was "loaded" into the shaft of the boat in the TPK. This means that in order to "throw" the rocket out of the mine, it will be necessary to trigger the PAD at the moment T + 00. It was the gunpowder pressure accumulator that "threw the rocket out of the TPK and, accordingly, the shaft. And all this time the shaft was dry, it was not filled with seawater. The PAD compartment was separated already in the air just before the main engine was turned on.
    SLBM engine turned on in the shaft of the boat, which before starting was filled with water

    Quote: Andrew NM
    The crew of Aleksandr Alekseevich Bogachev, in general, fired 2 ammunition sets within a year without problems, and Bogachev himself "shot" about 60 pieces. These are no longer throw tests.

    Andrew! Honor and praise to the crew of A.A. Bogachev But I talked a little about something else.
    R-39s "got out" as much as possible to the limit. Still, about 40 test launches were carried out. The Bulava was tested according to a simplified program. In addition, the GRTs had tremendous experience with boat missiles, which Solomonov did not have. Although the GRC took part in certain stages of the product development. But at the R-39 all the jambs got out at the LI stage and were eliminated, the Bulava does not seem to have. I do not want to give an assessment of this product now, it is quite possible that the MIT members have already finished it, but the "high-speed test method" turned out sideways for them.

    Quote: Andrew NM
    "Bulava" generally "starts" after leaving the water. And MIT also had no experience in designing such systems.

    All solid-fuel rockets (and liquid ones with a mortar launch) include marching engines after leaving the transport and launch container.
    Didn't quite understand your phrase that MIT had no experience? Experience of what? The creation of a ballistic missile launched from submarines or the experience of creating missiles with a mortar launch? If the first, then I agree to all 1000%. Therefore, the SRC was involved at certain stages of the development of the complex. If we are talking about a mortar launch, then all MIT medium-range and intercontinental missiles used a mortar launch. These are "Temp-2S", and "Pioneer" (all modifications), and "Topol", and "Topol-M", and "Yars" of all modifications

    Quote: Andrew NM
    By the way, how were the products for the K-140 SSBN produced? Like PADs were thrown out too. Designed by St. Petersburg KB "Arsenal". As far as I remember, the K-140 was constantly stationed at the pier in Hajiyevo, was assigned to the 31st division. They disposed of missiles by shooting, as in the 941s, but not all came out. In the early 90s, the boat was decommissioned. The complex did not go into production.

    Using PAD. That is, the PAD was turned on in the mine, threw it out of the water, after which the 1st stage marching engine was turned on.
    The rocket was stabilized in the underwater segment of the trajectory by a caverning device that was fired after leaving the water.
    In fact, if Viktor Petrovich Makeev, respected by me, being, in addition to being the GC GRTs, but also a member of the Central Committee of the CPSU, would not have "gobbled up" a competitor - Pyotr Aleksandrovich Tyurin (chief designer of the R-31), then perhaps the fleet would eventually receive a solid fuel a rocket and not a 90-ton mass. By the way, the R-31 was our first SLBM launched with the aid of a PAD.

    Quote: Andrew NM
    They carried out the disposal of missiles by shooting, as in the 941s, but not all came out. In the early 90's, the boat was decommissioned.

    According to various sources, from 2 to 4 missiles (the first more frequently encountered figure) did not come out (there were 6 stages of shooting). Those who did not leave were disposed of ashore

    Quote: Andrew NM
    As a rule, liquid-propellant rockets "start" in mines, they do not need PADs. The reactive gases are themselves "PADs".

    Not all. The Chelomeev rockets had and still have a gas-dynamic launch method (on their own engines). Yangelevskys - MR-UR-100, R-36M family (R-36M, R-36M UTTKh, R-36M2 Voyevoda) and R-36M3 Ikar, which was not realized due to the collapse of the Union, had a mortar launch with the help of PAD

    Quote: vVvAD
    The casting weight of Trident II reaches 2800 kg. Separating warhead (RGC) can carry individual warheads (BB) of the individual type W88 (475 ct) or W76 (100 ct) - 8 and 14 units, respectively.

    Not beating 475x8 = 3800 + the weight of the dilution mechanism, and quite considerable, which is clearly seen from the number of BB W76. There cannot be W88 8 pcs at least while maintaining the same range.

    Your mistake, Vadim, is that you multiply the power of the W-88 warheads by their number. The weight of the BB EMNIP is about 300 kg
    1. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 26 May 2020 18: 48 New
      +3
      Quote: Old26
      Let's figure it out, Andrew.
      SLBM R-39 was "loaded" into the shaft of the boat in the TPK.

      No. R-39 was "naked", there was no TPK. She was "hung" behind her head on the ARSS, which was a kind of launch pad and sealed the mine. By the way, the last stage was still liquid. There were 2 belts of shock absorbers, which "crumbled" after the start. On the 4K-10 and 3M-20 externally, the belts were somewhat similar, they also flew off after the start, or when you hooked onto the cart unsuccessfully during loading. The engine was started when the output sensor was triggered. Upon exiting the water, a pyro node was triggered, which "cut off" the ARCC, which, in turn, was also taken away by the pyro nodes. The tail section was separated. The ARSS also had a system that made a gas cavity for the rocket to move under water. The PAD was at the bottom of the shaft in the nozzle cavity.
      MIT had no experience with missiles for submarines.
      Quote: Old26
      In liquid SLBMs, the engine was switched on in the boat shaft, which was filled with water before starting

      Once upon a time it was my institution :)) ...
      About K-140 asked the question more to himself, because previously just did not think about it. At one time, almost every day passed by a pier with K-140 for a umpteen years. The boat was still under decommissioning.
      To be honest, I was not interested in land-based ICBMs before.
      Quote: Old26
      Do not quite understand your phrase that MIT had no experience? Experience of what? Creating a ballistic missile launched from a submarine or experience creating missiles with a mortar launch? If the first - then I agree to all 1000%. Therefore, the GRC was involved at certain stages of the development of the complex.

      In general, the height of cynicism is to take away the work from specialists, and then involve the same specialists in the same works, which, due to the lack of knowledge and curvature, cannot be completed. But grandmas pass through themselves.
      1. Fizik M
        Fizik M 26 May 2020 21: 04 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey NM
        In general, the height of cynicism is to take away the work from specialists, and then involve the same specialists in the same works, which, due to the lack of knowledge and curvature, cannot be completed. But grandmas pass through themselves.

        it has become "the rule rather than the exception" ...
  23. demchuk.ig
    demchuk.ig 26 May 2020 16: 26 New
    +3
    "Sineva" and "Liner" - these are missiles! MIT employees "pumped" themselves the development of something that they have never been engaged in. Lobby they have zashibis. And now we have the shit that we have.
  24. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 28 May 2020 07: 23 New
    +1
    Quote: KCA
    Why are you pulling any nonsense from the Internet? All that concerns the testing and technical condition of the nuclear submarine and "Bulava" - state secrets, for disclosure up to 6 years, with grave consequences up to 7 years, well, treason to the Motherland up to 20, where do the authors of these opuses write? From "Lefortovo" or already from the colony ?? Was Wi-Fi connected to those under investigation in Lefortovo?



    People meet, people communicate. Well, let’s put the Mace aside. MIT ALWAYS handed over
    in the Strategic Missile Forces are raw complexes, which then brought to mind through training and test launches. These are words of the deputy. commander of the Strategic Missile Forces. It is clear that with the solid fuel sector, we have always been bad. Backward chemistry of fuels, materials, electronics. Therefore, the problems were and will be. But what to do to the sailors who were loaded in the boat the first options of the Mace? Play Russian roulette?
    1. NAVIAVI
      NAVIAVI 28 May 2020 11: 17 New
      0
      They won’t do anything.
      Discuss in the garage for a glass of awl and reach for iron. The main task is the length of service, Kamchatka allowances, pension, an apartment in the suburbs of St. Petersburg and a quiet life.
      At least the majority of the submariners whom he knew reasoned like that.
      Well, hope is lucky and there will be no war.
  25. Old26
    Old26 28 May 2020 13: 16 New
    0
    Quote: demchuk.ig
    "Sineva" and "Liner" - these are missiles! MIT employees "pumped" themselves the development of something that they have never been engaged in. Lobby they have zashibis. And now we have the shit that we have.

    Everyone is doing something for the first time. The first missile for submarines was generally royal. And Makeev did not start with missiles for submarines. And from the ground-based tactical mobile missile - the now famous all over the world "SKAD". Before him, the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau was engaged in the design of missiles for submarines.
    Now the same GRC them. Makeeva is engaged in something that has never been done before - the creation of a ground (mine) ICBM.

    Quote: Dzafdet
    Quote: KCA
    Why are you pulling any nonsense from the Internet? All that concerns the testing and technical condition of the nuclear submarine and "Bulava" - state secrets, for disclosure up to 6 years, with grave consequences up to 7 years, well, treason to the Motherland up to 20, where do the authors of these opuses write? From "Lefortovo" or already from the colony ?? Was Wi-Fi connected to those under investigation in Lefortovo?


    People meet, people communicate. Well, let’s put the Mace aside. MIT ALWAYS handed over
    in the Strategic Missile Forces are raw complexes, which then brought to mind through training and test launches. These are words of the deputy. commander of the Strategic Missile Forces. It is clear that with the solid fuel sector, we have always been bad. Backward chemistry of fuels, materials, electronics. Therefore, the problems were and will be. But what to do to the sailors who were loaded in the boat the first options of the Mace? Play Russian roulette?


    Did you always give it raw? Remind me what kind of complexes I handed over raw, except for "Bulava" ?? And you should not confuse the lag in solid fuels in 50-60 years with the situation in 80-90 years. That is something raw were supplied to the troops in such quantities. "Temp-S" - more than 1200 missiles, "Pioneer" - 728 missiles and 405 SPUs, "Topol" - almost 400 launchers were in service, "Topol-M" - under 60 launchers only, "Yars" - under one and a half hundred. I do not even mention such complexes as Luna and Luna-M, which were supplied in the amount of 470 and 750 complexes, respectively. I don't even mention missiles. Only in 1990 was the 1000th launch of Luna-M in Afghanistan. And you continue to assert that everything is bad. As it was in the 50s, so now
  26. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 29 May 2020 19: 46 New
    +1
    Quote: Old26
    Quote: demchuk.ig
    "Sineva" and "Liner" - these are missiles! MIT employees "pumped" themselves the development of something that they have never been engaged in. Lobby they have zashibis. And now we have the shit that we have.

    Everyone is doing something for the first time. The first missile for submarines was generally royal. And Makeev did not start with missiles for submarines. And from the ground-based tactical mobile missile - the now famous all over the world "SKAD". Before him, the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau was engaged in the design of missiles for submarines.
    Now the same GRC them. Makeeva is engaged in something that has never been done before - the creation of a ground (mine) ICBM.

    Quote: Dzafdet
    Quote: KCA
    Why are you pulling any nonsense from the Internet? All that concerns the testing and technical condition of the nuclear submarine and "Bulava" - state secrets, for disclosure up to 6 years, with grave consequences up to 7 years, well, treason to the Motherland up to 20, where do the authors of these opuses write? From "Lefortovo" or already from the colony ?? Was Wi-Fi connected to those under investigation in Lefortovo?


    People meet, people communicate. Well, let’s put the Mace aside. MIT ALWAYS handed over
    in the Strategic Missile Forces are raw complexes, which then brought to mind through training and test launches. These are words of the deputy. commander of the Strategic Missile Forces. It is clear that with the solid fuel sector, we have always been bad. Backward chemistry of fuels, materials, electronics. Therefore, the problems were and will be. But what to do to the sailors who were loaded in the boat the first options of the Mace? Play Russian roulette?


    Did you always give it raw? Remind me what kind of complexes I handed over raw, except for "Bulava" ?? And you should not confuse the lag in solid fuels in 50-60 years with the situation in 80-90 years. That is something raw were supplied to the troops in such quantities. "Temp-S" - more than 1200 missiles, "Pioneer" - 728 missiles and 405 SPUs, "Topol" - almost 400 launchers were in service, "Topol-M" - under 60 launchers only, "Yars" - under one and a half hundred. I do not even mention such complexes as Luna and Luna-M, which were supplied in the amount of 470 and 750 complexes, respectively. I don't even mention missiles. Only in 1990 was the 1000th launch of Luna-M in Afghanistan. And you continue to assert that everything is bad. As it was in the 50s, so now




    Well yes. well yes. To me, who has the VUS and the Luna-m complex, you will tell me about it. It was impossible for a long time to carry a rocket with a nuclear warhead from the moon on a tank chassis. Large loads were on the rocket. On the Moon, M is better, but there the accuracy was + - 1500 meters. No matter how comme il faut. Americans would have made a rocket with such a range less, but fuel, fuel ...
    Do not overwhelm me with numbers of complexes like Temp or Pioneer. The same Pioneer had three modifications, what does this mean? Blinded quickly, and then began to bring to mind. With Topol the same song. The weight of the complexes and the length of the rocket grew. because of this, it was necessary to lengthen the chassis, and this is also the weight. why did the weight grow? There was no fuel and electronics to make the car smaller ....