Military Review

American expert: It takes decades to create the Russian Sarmat ballistic missile

137

Russia understands the need to replace the existing ballistic missiles with more modern ones. While their development does not proceed quickly and smoothly, the transfer of this weapons the military will give the Russian Federation a tangible advantage over the United States.


This is how the American expert Caleb Larson argues in an article published by the American edition of the National Interest.

Today, the most "long-range" ballistic missile in service with the Russian army is considered to be the Soviet RS-36M Voevoda, or according to NATO's classification SS-18 "Satan". "Voevoda" is a silo-based ICBM with a nuclear warhead, with a range of about 10 thousand kilometers. This powerful weapon is already obsolete and needs to be replaced.

Instead of it, they are going to adopt "Sarmat". The exact performance characteristics of this intercontinental ballistic missile are not publicly available, according to Larsen. But, perhaps, the range of the new missile will be greater than that of "Satan". The Sarmat is capable of carrying not only a universal nuclear warhead, but also 10 large warheads or 16 smaller ones. In addition, the missile can be used as a delivery vehicle for guided hypersonic warheads (UBB) capable of maneuvering. They are still under development.

The creation of "Sarmat" began in the 2000s, and by 2015 the first prototype was assembled. During the tests, a number of technical problems were discovered, due to which the date of putting the rocket into operation was postponed several times. That is why the American expert writes that work on "Sarmat" takes decades.

Initially, it was expected that the "Sarmat" will go into service in 2018. Now the deadline is 2021, but it is possible that it will be postponed again.

Perhaps the developers believe that the rush in transferring such a serious weapon to the troops is inappropriate. It is better to eliminate all the shortcomings now and save the Russian military from future possible problems than to rush into commissioning the missile.
137 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ilya-spb
    Ilya-spb 2 August 2020 16: 58 New
    14
    Just think, decades!

    But our scientists and engineers did a good job.

    Measure seven times ... once ... and no US!

    PS I have a feeling that the Americans are simply jealous of the success of our military-industrial complex.
    1. Finches
      Finches 2 August 2020 17: 11 New
      18
      It would be better if they watched their 1960 Minuteman scrap metal - and not talked about Sarmat! And then some offended nigra will take and press a button to amuse his idleness and take revenge on the whole white world ...
      1. Ilshat
        Ilshat 2 August 2020 17: 16 New
        -3
        There is probably nothing left of 1960, everything has changed.
        1. Finches
          Finches 2 August 2020 17: 22 New
          11
          They were put into service, but naturally they were finished with a file while undergoing modernization, but our Voivode was adopted at 78, and the last modification of the R-36M2, already in 1988, was put into operation. However, to be correct in comparisons, the closest colleague of their Minuteman is not the Voivode, but Poplar!
          1. Greg Miller
            Greg Miller 2 August 2020 19: 06 New
            +2
            But the United States does not have the "Minuteman" as the main missile carrier of nuclear weapons, but "Trident-2", and with it the Americans are doing much better than we have with "Voevoda" and "Sarmat", which is not yet known and it is not known when it is will be, in marketable quantities and ... By the way, the last "Voevods" will be removed from the database in 2022 ...
          2. silberwolf88
            silberwolf88 2 August 2020 22: 23 New
            +9
            well, you are twitching a little ... if you take 15A14 and 15 A18 ... these are similar products that differ (if you take fundamental decisions) only by an additional dilution stage of 18 (for 14 bludgeoned with monoblocks of 10 Mt each) ... but 15A18M ( she is the Voivode ... she is Satan and so on) a completely different rocket ... similar BUT we can say that a completely new product ... and the first regiments were put in Kartaly and Derzhavinsk in 85 - 86 years (78 is not appropriate here)
            1. hydrox
              hydrox 3 August 2020 07: 58 New
              -1
              Quote: silberwolf88
              and the first regiments were placed in Kartaly and Derzhavinsk in 85 - 86 years (78 is not appropriate here)

              That's it!
              You can clearly hear a real military expert, and it is in the part of the ICBM, and not some American rogue who knows about the tons of rust crumbled from the minutemans and about the timber cars that go to the support of the missile trash in the launch silos, so that they could at least theoretically withstand the launch! laughing
              And it doesn't matter that this chlamydah will fall back into the mine 3 seconds after launch, the main thing is that no one guesses about it: Mr. pseudo-expert is lagging behind in his forecasts about maneuvering blocks - in Russia, prototypes have been flying and are in service for two years already. , or they are issued as weapons (Vanguard and Zircon), and the unfortunate States already officially admit that they are already 20 years behind Russia in terms of designing hyper-weapons (there is not even a prototype flying yet !!!)
              They would be silent, shameful, so as not to attract world attention to their weapons problems once again (fu-35 is enough to understand on what crutches the US Air Force is holding! laughing
              Who cares how many tons of doxycycline the States still need to devour in order to recover from this shameful disease, but the "EXCLUSION OF STATES" suggests that THIS overseas rhinitis is chronic! crying
              1. U-58
                U-58 3 August 2020 10: 43 New
                +1
                It is not necessary to proceed from the primacy of the necromancers' awareness of their exclusiveness.
                They guys are quite pragmatists and realists.
                Back in the 70s, the journal "Foreign Military Review" reprinted the American analytical review of the US XIAN.
                Experts at that time believed that on day "Z" (Zakhodum, presumably)))), with a massive launch of ICBMs, up to 25-30% of them would not complete the combat mission.
                It took into account all-non-launch, explosions and shutdowns of the remote control, "misses" past the target, failure of warheads finally (which is believed in the first place).
                And this is without taking into account the counteraction of the enemy's missile defense.
                So they look at life quite realistically.
                1. hydrox
                  hydrox 3 August 2020 16: 53 New
                  +8
                  Quote: U-58
                  So they look at life quite realistically.

                  Those. Do you think that the "real guys" are SURE that their rusty iron will still be able to start, aim correctly, follow the calculated trajectory, without succumbing to the influence of electronic warfare means, overcome our missile defense system in the form of S-500 and S-400, (without being to this maneuver trained and designed!) and still get into the mine covers (HIT, Karl!) of our Voivods. And what percentage of the launched carts will reach Russian targets is not specified in this report? So I'll tell you - units of PIECES, because:
                  1. The rest will be destroyed before reaching our borders.
                  2. Only one American avenue will be interested in the results of its work in its bunker, since the surviving (even wounded and burned) 100 million Americans will absolutely not care what the globalist-minded liberal community can object to - their all, too, will be seized by a nervous shaking. They can be understood, since the Mirian launch was made in 30 minutes. before our answer, but by the time the targets were covered in Russia, all Russian mines were empty and only the sluggish Voevods carefully dispatched their YBGs to the remaining targets of Boeing and Northrop, and the shipyards ... nothing from the economy, except 70% of financial services, in the States is no longer stay.

                  By the number of their minuses to these two comments, the Lyberdians will show their horror of the fall of their overlord and complete devastation - so who will need them now, who will pay them now, and under whose flag they will find themselves a new refuge from which they will draw their vitality ...
                  This will be the main goal of a nuclear war with the United States.
                  1. For example
                    For example 3 August 2020 18: 45 New
                    +3
                    I read your message liberalized and somehow calmed down.
                    laughing
                    God willing we will live under a peaceful sky.
                    good
                  2. U-58
                    U-58 3 August 2020 19: 07 New
                    -3
                    “... 49 minutes ago, the Chinese launched a massive launch. The Americans responded.
                    It hurts us too.
                    We will intercept the first wave. Partially the second. And the third will be intercepted by nothing and no one "© S. Tarmashev" Ancient "
                    1. Non liberoid Russian
                      Non liberoid Russian 9 August 2020 07: 02 New
                      -1
                      it remains only to quote fantasy. not even science fiction. about dolphins in space when will we tell?
                      1. U-58
                        U-58 9 August 2020 09: 42 New
                        -1
                        Fantasy .. especially if the author is a major in the GRU Specialist.
                        And the author has already told about Delphi in space))))
                      2. Non liberoid Russian
                        Non liberoid Russian 16 August 2020 23: 47 New
                        -1
                        Have you read Wikipedia? who in their right mind will yell to the whole world that he is from a special gru?
      2. nPuBaTuP
        nPuBaTuP 2 August 2020 17: 23 New
        +4
        Can you provide information on the latest upgrades of the Minutemans? .. You know at least a year?
        1. Ilshat
          Ilshat 2 August 2020 17: 25 New
          -1
          No I can not...
          I read that they were repeatedly modernized, as is customary among the Americans.
        2. Finches
          Finches 2 August 2020 17: 34 New
          +5
          According to open sources, the last thing they modernized was the power plant in 2004.
        3. Vitaly gusin
          Vitaly gusin 2 August 2020 18: 32 New
          -8
          Quote: nPuBaTuP
          Can you provide information on the latest upgrades of the Minutemans? .. You know at least a year?

          Minuteman III received a 2017 update.
          The new warhead fuse is tested on the Minuteman III in 2020.
          But a new US intercontinental ballistic missile is currently being developed to replace all 450 Minuteman III missiles in service with the US Air Force. The $ 22 billion GBSD program will include more than 600 missiles. Northrop Grumman is currently a contractor with replacement plans starting in 2027 and ending in 2029.
      3. K-612-O
        K-612-O 2 August 2020 17: 32 New
        +5
        The freshest Minuteman3 76-78 year of release, only the tridents are changed regularly
      4. Ilya-spb
        Ilya-spb 2 August 2020 17: 32 New
        +2
        Yes, we replaced white parts with black parts)))
        1. Ilshat
          Ilshat 2 August 2020 17: 36 New
          -10
          And also solid fuel in all stages.
          Not only.
          With modernizations, the Americans have everything normal.
          1. Lara Croft
            Lara Croft 2 August 2020 19: 11 New
            +4
            Quote: Ilshat
            With modernizations, the Americans have everything normal.

            repeatedly modernized, as is customary among the Americans

            We understood YOU, "only" the Americans had ICBMs and underwent modernization, but I dare to upset you, you did not deserve payment from the mutual assistance fund, do not come tomorrow, you work clumsy ... etc. business your colleague ...
            mvg (Maxim)
            Trident has 154 successful launches in a row.

            "Owns" the information how many launches Trident-1 and -2 (apparently without British) had ... his friends, the head of the US SAC and the US Navy Minister and personally to Maxim reported on the state of the US ICBMs (sea and land based) ...
            Back in 2017, two giants of the American military industry - Northrop Grumman and Boeing - applied for participation in the competition for the development of a new intercontinental ballistic missile. However, then Boeing decided to refuse to participate in the competition. As a result, Northrop Grumman was the only contender for the development of a new ICBM.
            The new missile, according to the plans of the American military department, by the end of the 2020s should replace the Minuteman III ICBMs, developed in the second half of the 1960s. Since over half a century of operation, Minuteman III has undergone only minimal modernization, the need for its replacement within the next decade is not questioned.
            Now one of the main problems is financing the development and construction of a new ICBM.

            https://topwar.ru/170328-v-ssha-opredelilis-s-cenoj-i-srokami-razrabotki-mbr-novogo-pokolenija.html
            1. Ilshat
              Ilshat 2 August 2020 19: 17 New
              -12
              Not a reputable source.
              1. Lara Croft
                Lara Croft 2 August 2020 19: 21 New
                +9
                Quote: Ilshat
                Not a reputable source.

                But you do not bring yours, as you were not asked to
                nPuBaTuP (Nikolay) Today, 17:23
                1. Ilshat
                  Ilshat 2 August 2020 19: 28 New
                  -8
                  Guidance Replacement Program (GRP), Guidance System Replacement Program.
                  Started in 1996, Continues on an ongoing basis, Replaces on-board computers, amplifiers, guidance systems and platform electronics: https://web.archive.org/web/20140309043543if_/http://armscontrolcenter.org:80/assets/pdfs/ ICBMFactSheet.pdf

                  I didn’t, because information is well known.

                  Articles from this site often sin with inaccuracies and distortion of meaning beyond recognition, such as the development of a new anti-overload suit due to an increase in the wear resistance of construction materials.
                  Etc.
              2. Lara Croft
                Lara Croft 2 August 2020 19: 27 New
                +3
                Quote: Ilshat
                Not a reputable source.

                That's it ...
                The ground component of the strategic nuclear forces is now equipped only with the LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBM. These missiles were created back in the sixties and are still in service today. In the nineties and two thousand years, the Minuteman missiles were modernized with the replacement of engines and part of the equipment. Warheads W78 were also serviced. ICBM LGM-30G is planned to remain in the army until the thirties. A replacement for them is not yet being developed., but a similar project may start in the foreseeable future.

                https://army-news.org/2019/04/modernizaciya-syas-ssha-spory-i-dela/
                1. Ilshat
                  Ilshat 2 August 2020 19: 41 New
                  -4
                  Quote: Lara Croft
                  A replacement for them is not yet being developed.

                  The United States will create a new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III: https://regnum.ru/news/2667776.html
                  1. Lara Croft
                    Lara Croft 2 August 2020 19: 49 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Ilshat
                    Quote: Lara Croft
                    A replacement for them is not yet being developed.

                    The United States will create a new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III: https://regnum.ru/news/2667776.html

                    What is the difference between your source and mine (presented earlier)?
                    Now one of the main problems is financing the development and construction of a new ICBM.

                    https://topwar.ru/170328-v-ssha-opredelilis-s-cenoj-i-srokami-razrabotki-mbr-novogo-pokolenija.html
                    ... do not try to surpass your comments mvg (Maxim) he is apparently the eldest of you, it will not work, in your comments there are no numbers, neither the number of launches, nor the number of ICBMs in both countries ...
                    Goodbye....
                    1. Ilshat
                      Ilshat 2 August 2020 19: 55 New
                      -6
                      Quote: Lara Croft
                      he is probably the eldest of you

                      I am on my own.
              3. Non liberoid Russian
                Non liberoid Russian 9 August 2020 07: 04 New
                0
                but you yourself are not holding the truth. body will you?
      5. 5-9
        5-9 2 August 2020 19: 02 New
        0
        7,85-inch drives remained ... I did not know about the existence of such in the 80s, I thought that 6,75 immediately after the dinosaurs were .. Oh, that's how it is ..
        1. sgapich
          sgapich 3 August 2020 10: 59 New
          0
          Quote: 5-9
          7,85-inch drives remained ... I did not know about the existence of such in the 80s, I thought that 6,75 immediately after the dinosaurs were .. Oh, that's how it is ..

          Where did the 7,85 and 6,75 inches come from? I thought that after 8 inches, 5,25 inches immediately went. hi
          If anyone is interested - the text of the 1st edition of the standard for 8-inch floppy disks.
          http://dev.ecma-international.org/wp-content/uploads/ECMA-54_1st_edition_january_1978.pdf
          1. 5-9
            5-9 3 August 2020 12: 09 New
            0
            Maybe 8 inches ... I write from memory ... I never heard about such people even in childhood ... that is. it's up to the year 85, probably
            1. sgapich
              sgapich 3 August 2020 12: 33 New
              0
              He disassembled a car with 8 "drives in one computer center, in 96-97 years (the floppy disk is still lying around somewhere, though most likely at the parents' house). 5.25" - actively used; 3.5 "is rumored to be still used for reporting purposes.
      6. Sarmat Sanych
        Sarmat Sanych 2 August 2020 19: 11 New
        +6
        llshat, read below. There are only cosmetic changes, American nuclear weapons are in an extremely underdeveloped state. However, like their whole country with a new Civil War, 45 million unemployment, 5 million covid infection, 53 percent drop in GDP, hundreds of killings from shootings every day and other delights.
        1. Ilshat
          Ilshat 2 August 2020 19: 54 New
          11
          I have absolutely no respect for Americans.
          And I do not wish them well.
          But, I think the important point is an adequate assessment of the situation.
          It is impossible to fall into both capricious and defeatist moods.
          Unfortunately, in my, possibly erroneous, impression - here many people think that the cap is a manifestation of patriotism.

          It's good that the Americans are failing with modernization.
          But they changed the fuel, i.e. their missiles cannot be called not workable rubbish of the 60s of release.
          And not only fuel, they did something else and - most likely - the missiles are combat-ready.
          1. Gost2012
            Gost2012 2 August 2020 20: 00 New
            +9
            Quote: Ilshat

            But, I think the important point is an adequate assessment of the situation.
            It is impossible to fall into both capricious and defeatist moods.
            .

            you are very right
          2. aleksejkabanets
            aleksejkabanets 2 August 2020 20: 33 New
            +7
            Quote: Ilshat
            Unfortunately, in my, possibly erroneous, impression - here many people think that the cap is a manifestation of patriotism.

            Your impression is not wrong.
        2. Roman123567
          Roman123567 3 August 2020 09: 01 New
          -1
          American nuclear weapons in an extremely underdeveloped state

          After the use of any nuclear weapons, everyone will be underdeveloped ..))
          Although .. it may be nicer for someone to have his head chopped off not with an ordinary guillotine, but with a high-tech ax ..))
      7. stalki
        stalki 2 August 2020 21: 10 New
        0
        There is probably nothing left of 1960, everything has changed.
        You wanted to say modernized, and besides, the Americans are limited in the amount of the main components (I mean uranium for enrichment), we have it easier with that.
    2. mvg
      mvg 2 August 2020 17: 25 New
      -15
      scrap metal "Minuteman" 1960 release

      These scrap metal fly annually, together with Tridents. They are undergoing maintenance and modernization. And they fly better than Mace or Sineva. Trident has 154 successful launches in a row. How many is there at Bulava? 30% unsuccessful or more?
      Well, Voevoda, when was the last time you flew? In 2009? How many are there? About 30 pcs? All with extended service life more than once.
      PS: So who has scrap metal?
      1. Finches
        Finches 2 August 2020 17: 35 New
        +8
        For the pin ... did it hurt? laughing Sorry - I didn't mean to offend you! hi
        1. AML
          AML 2 August 2020 18: 31 New
          +7
          Do not call pinddos pinddos, they take offense. :)
          1. Mouse
            Mouse 2 August 2020 19: 28 New
            +8
            Do not call pinddos pinddos, they take offense. :)

            And blacks are blacks ... they are also offended ... laughing
            1. Russ
              Russ 2 August 2020 19: 59 New
              +6
              The impression is that they are all offended there in life ... laughing
      2. shinobi
        shinobi 2 August 2020 17: 54 New
        +5
        Well, well, comrade, do not misinterpret! Roar, this is the same Voevoda. Only with the Breeze accelerator, instead of nuclear blocks.
        1. slipped
          slipped 2 August 2020 18: 43 New
          11
          Quote: shinobi
          Well, well, comrade, do not misinterpret! Roar, this is the same Voevoda. Only with the Breeze accelerator, instead of nuclear blocks.


          Rokot is the UR-100UTTH, not the Voivode.
          1. shinobi
            shinobi 2 August 2020 18: 51 New
            +3
            Dnipro, made a reservation. Rokot, this is Stiletto.
            1. slipped
              slipped 2 August 2020 19: 01 New
              +4
              Quote: shinobi
              Dnipro, made a reservation. Rokot, this is Stiletto.


              Uh-huh. Both are no longer there. But now they are doing Rokot-2.
              1. shinobi
                shinobi 2 August 2020 19: 02 New
                0
                What are they molded from?
                1. slipped
                  slipped 2 August 2020 19: 26 New
                  +2
                  Quote: shinobi
                  What are they molded from?


                  yes, the rocket is the same, only the Breeze-KM-2 is different.
        2. mvg
          mvg 2 August 2020 19: 29 New
          -3
          Rumble, this is the same Voivode

          At least on a wiki or something, get in, well, before you burst
      3. The comment was deleted.
        1. Yuriy71
          Yuriy71 2 August 2020 19: 08 New
          -18
          You are awarded the Prize for the best novel of the year! Do you think anyone will read your creation?
          1. Sarmat Sanych
            Sarmat Sanych 2 August 2020 19: 16 New
            13
            Yuriy71, what is so blazing for Zaokan lordslaughing? A napkin?
          2. Lara Croft
            Lara Croft 2 August 2020 20: 00 New
            10
            Quote: Yuriy71
            Do you think anyone will read your creation?

            It is better to read this than the nonsense of the ukropatriots and our liberoids on this site as a whole ... Old 26 also writes ...
          3. Ilshat
            Ilshat 2 August 2020 20: 33 New
            11
            Well I read it.
            From start to finish.
            Interesting, but some confirmation is desirable.
            And the details are also interesting.
            Sarmat Sanych - make an article.
            Long.
            Even if clip thinking is widespread now, there will be someone to read it.
          4. stalki
            stalki 2 August 2020 21: 21 New
            +9
            You are awarded the Prize for the best novel of the year! Do you think anyone will read your creation?
            I read it and realized that I was not the only one who read it. You'd better be silent, there is nothing to cover laughing
          5. zwlad
            zwlad 2 August 2020 22: 01 New
            +1
            I read for example.
        2. Yuriy71
          Yuriy71 2 August 2020 19: 10 New
          -18
          Have you heard the ever-known truth - BRIEF - SISTER OF TALENT !!! ???
        3. Thrifty
          Thrifty 2 August 2020 19: 17 New
          +4
          Sarmat Sanych, now write the same thing in as much detail as possible lol
          1. Sarmat Sanych
            Sarmat Sanych 2 August 2020 19: 18 New
            +8
            Thrifty, save your time and mine. Therefore, brieflygood
        4. mvg
          mvg 2 August 2020 19: 33 New
          -9
          Sergei, if I use this sheet, then I will answer. I'll check the facts
          1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
            Boris ⁣ Shaver 2 August 2020 22: 11 New
            +7
            Quote: mvg
            check the facts

            You previously gave an unverified fact about the number of successful launches in a row for the Yankees. What can you check there? Don't make people laugh - you are obviously incapable of relaying low-quality propaganda.
        5. snucerist
          snucerist 2 August 2020 21: 24 New
          -5
          You have calmed us all.
          There are two conclusions to be drawn from your sheet.
          1. US can be taken with bare hands.
          2. If you have any difficulties with item 1, you can simply throw hats over them.
          Confusing, however, is one circumstance - the difference in the military budgets of the States and Russia. Since, according to Shoigu, the amount of the US military budget exceeds Russian military expenditures by 16 times, a completely logical question arises: where does this huge money go? Is nothing being invented, modernized or replaced? Including in the field of nuclear weapons? Is everything being stolen?
          Sorry, I don’t believe it. In the United States, of course, officials are not shot, as in China for theft, but the judicial system there is well-functioning and really independent from the government. And no prosecutor or judge will miss the signal of corruption or theft. Everything will be duly investigated. No call from the White House will interfere with this, and if the press gets involved, even the president will not seem a little.
          So there are very strong suspicions that the money allocated by Congress for the modernization and renewal of the army is still reaching its goal. And the fact that the Americans often keep quiet and do not pass off as an outstanding breakthrough in military terms, the launching of a small coaster is their mentality. Do not crow over the joy that, finally, another project of the century has been drawn on a piece of paper, or that the construction of another RTO has been completed.
          1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
            Boris ⁣ Shaver 2 August 2020 22: 14 New
            0
            Quote: snucerist
            the difference between the military budgets of the States and Russia

            Capitalism. We are also moving forward with leaps and bounds. Not to a huge budget, of course, but to the low efficiency of the invested funds.
      4. 5-9
        5-9 2 August 2020 19: 04 New
        +5
        154 launches in a row? Is this from 2018 when the fuckup happened? Or is it a stupid lie?
        1. mvg
          mvg 2 August 2020 21: 26 New
          -6
          Is this from 2018 when the fuckup happened?

          It was a launch from an English boat, and this is 2017. What Sarmat wrote about, left the course. There's a limited version with 3 warheads.
      5. Sarmat Sanych
        Sarmat Sanych 2 August 2020 19: 07 New
        20
        mvg, I'm not talking about the Minuteman with a stunted warhead, from 2011 to 2017 the reliability was close to 60/40, i.e. it either takes off or does not take off, and that is the case when a couple of years ago the Joint Chiefs of Staff removed 17 Air Force officers The United States for not knowing which buttons to press in order to prepare the rocket for launch - this will be included in the repertoire of the best circuses in the worldlaughing... And this is on alert.
        Weakness bluff is a traditional English and later American occupation.
        If some say that during "Begemot-2" 14 out of 16 were weight-dimensional, then why don't they mention that Americans have only weight and size since 1989? The fact that the Americans have a simulation of reality during training launches is much worse than ours is a well-known fact.
        Plus the launch interval: for us they are fantastically small (4-fold salvo in 20 seconds), and for "exceptional" ones they are huge. The last time in 2017 (this was after the unsuccessful launch by the British), they barely forced out a double launch, and then with an interval of 4 hours. Probably after the 1st, the water was pumped out of the mine))). And did the States make at least 20% of their training launches such a distance as ours from the North to the Kura? And how many% are there "successful" but with subsequent self-liquidation? And so yes, "Trident"laughing.
        Let's add up and calculate the average age of the potentials of the Russian Federation and the USA - it turns out that ours are three times younger. Finally, the Americans stupidly do not have new plutonium and it will not appear by any modernization-rejuvenation, and even more so in the quantities that they need, but we have it all renewed (Russia produces more than 70% of the world's plutonium).
        It is also necessary to remind - with what cut and scandal was the last "modernization" of the Minutemans. Not to mention their reliability in exercises from 2011 to 2017.
        As a result, the real Strategic Nuclear Potential of Russia is 3-4 times more powerful than the American one (and no less than 12 times more powerful than the Chinese, and I am not talking about microscopic nuclear weapons of various France, Britain, India, Israel and Pakistan). Russia is a global leader in Strategic Nuclear Weapons. As in everything else and in the hypersonic, as well as in the nuclear industry as a whole.
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 2 August 2020 20: 22 New
          +5
          Probably after the 1st, the water was pumped out of the mine
          Judging by the time interval, it was pumped out with buckets from the fire panel.
        2. mvg
          mvg 2 August 2020 21: 48 New
          -6
          As a result, Russia's real Strategic Nuclear Potential is 3-4 times more powerful than the American

          wink wink
          Rzhu, I can not .. You bring proofs, and not clippings from the media, such as the newspaper Izvestia. They even get confused with the date.
          So, for a start, about Begemot-2, is it okay that they have been preparing for this for 2 years? In this case, already AFTER the first failed attempt. Well, the 667 project still has 3-5 years to serve. You live in the past, face reality.
          And yes, what can you know about the potential of the PRC? Or Israel? Even officially, the RF-PRC differs less than 3 times, and unlike us, they make YaBG and their delivery vehicles in the hundreds. They have no restrictions, the uranium mines of Mongolia are theirs.
          PS: I feel that the nonsense in the sheet is written from the yellow press. Like the one that drew like 103 Tomahawks in the raid, 101 were shot down wink Then, after a couple of days, 77 were shot down, later about 30, etc. And showed the wreckage of 2-3 CR
          1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
            Boris ⁣ Shaver 2 August 2020 22: 20 New
            +5
            Quote: mvg
            proofs

            Particularly funny in this request is that you simply flunked us with proofs for your statements.
          2. Sarmat Sanych
            Sarmat Sanych 3 August 2020 17: 03 New
            +2
            mvg, and you have no idea about the strategic nuclear forces of the PRC. For 70 years, the Chinese in the military-industrial complex have not invented their own practically NOTHING.
            In terms of strategic nuclear forces, the PRC simply eats up the remnants of technology donated by the Union in the 50-60s, as well as sold for nothing by Russia in the 90-2000s. From the ground up, the USSR built China's entire industries with hundreds of factories and research institutes, trained hundreds of thousands of Chinese specialists, handed over documentation to all of its projects, and created the most powerful Chinese defense industry. Despite such a fantastic present, for 70 years of large-scale programs and trillions of investments, Beijing has not acquired a small nuclear triad. The Union in the PRC has built 763 full-fledged factories with all the infrastructure and the most modern equipment, 97 scientific and technical centers, 11 test sites, including 4 underground. ~ 150000 Chinese students studied for free in Soviet military schools, 6000 Soviet scientists and 100000 technologists and specialists worked in China itself. The enterprises built then - air complexes in Shenyang, Harbin, Xi'an and Chengdu, a tank factory in Baotou, a complex of enterprises for the production of small arms and artillery weapons, and much more are still the basis of the Chinese defense industry. China received from the USSR a huge array of equipment for creating a full cycle of nuclear weapons, rocket science, the R-1 and R-2 missiles and manufacturing technology, uranium enrichment technology, centrifuge construction, etc. The centrifuges themselves were eventually imported from the Union along with all the documentation, because the Chinese could not master their production at the Soviet factories in their homeland. Similarly with missiles, for 6 years the Chinese could not even manufacture a prototype of the Soviet project X-31. As a result, in the 57th USSR, it transferred the Celestial Empire with a full cycle of training local specialists in our universities, created the Beijing Institute of Physics and Atomic Energy in China, built a gas diffusion uranium enrichment plant in Lanzhou, and launched a heavy water reactor and cyclotron at a plant in Beijing. In the 58th Union, a nuclear test site was opened in Xinjiang, where the Chinese are still conducting ALL of their nuclear tests. The USSR put the Soviet R-2 and R-11 to China on the DB, the first combat formation of a new kind of troops appeared in the 1th. Celestial Empire received the technology for the production of nuclear carriers of the IL-28 and Tu-16. Even earlier, the Union sent to China a large number of IL-28s and 25 Tu-4s. In the early 60s, Moscow ceased to provide large-scale assistance to its neighbor, which instantly affected the entire nuclear program of China, the production of IL-28 and Tu-16 was established only in the 68th, and then every 2nd instance did not take off. Only at the end of 66th the 12st DF-894 (our R-1M) delivered a charge of 2 kt for 5 km, and in the 67th the 6st water was dropped from the Khun-16 (Tu-1) .bomb (3,3 mt). Tu-16 combat units received the names “Khun-5A” and “Khun-6A”, then the “Tsyan-5” (MiG-19) appeared. Since then, China’s strategic nuclear forces have remained virtually unchanged, including primitive liquid DF-5 (preparation for launching more than 2 hours), mobile solid-fuel. DF-31 (short range, monoblock), DF-4 (10 units) with a range of 5500 km (they cannot even be based in the mine, they are launched from the launch pad). There is an improved monoblock mobile DF-31NA with a range of 11000, but there are only 15 of them. In the 90s, on the basis of technologies stolen in the Russian Federation, the creation of the DF-41 with a range of about 14000 km, up to 10 blocks of low power, began. However, it will enter the database at least 15 years later, the whole history of China missile programs speaks about this: from the time of the first launch to the real database, it takes 1-20 years. Moreover, from the traditional triad (missile forces, submarine fleet and strategic aviation) - only one has been created in China. They have 1 boat with SLBMs - project 092, the range of the missiles is only 1700 km. But even this submarine with antediluvian missiles never reached the database, because it constantly breaks and is very noisy, when the engine starts, it is immediately detected by all neighbors. The construction of 094 boats with JL-2 missiles (the stolen R-30 technologies were used) with a range of 8000 km is underway. JL-2 was unsuccessfully tested for 25 years, 40 scientists and officers were shot "for the jambs". 094 itself, through espionage of technologies, was copied from the project 667BDR of the 76th year, but it was not possible to copy normally either - they are in terms of indicators similar to the Soviet ones of the early 70s. In terms of noise - 2nd generation (the Russian Federation and the United States are now 5th). Plus, they are not yet there, but the 1st 094 will be completed in three years. Even worse for aviation, nuclear weapons carry only one regiment of the old Tu-16 (Khun-6K), which the Chinese, thanks to two thousand Russian specialists in aircraft building research institutes, were able to modernize. Thank God, we managed to agree with Russia on the supply of D-30KP - they were decommissioned from us back in the 80s, but this is better than the Tu-16 engines of the Stalin era. The Khun-6K can carry cruise missiles (copies of the Soviet X-55), but for 30 years they have not developed a miniature nuclear warhead - this requires special technologies for producing charges. All attempts to steal or buy them failed - Hu Jintao still begged from us, offered billions, but the Kremlin refused. In 2008, Beijing showed interest in the Tu-22M3 and was even ready to exchange, in addition to money, a special welfare regime for Russian goods on the Chinese market, but Moscow did not consider this issue at all.
            PS About the ridiculous Israeli nuclear weapons, even mention, there is even smaller and more backward than that of Pakistan.
        3. mvg
          mvg 2 August 2020 23: 15 New
          -9
          they barely forced out a double start, and then with an interval of 4 hours

          Lies. Here is a video of two missiles coming out at once.
          https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3766103.html
          The total number of launches (successful) is 176. The Russian Navy does not have such a number of SLBMs.
          1. Sarmat Sanych
            Sarmat Sanych 3 August 2020 16: 46 New
            +1
            mvg, continued (possibly removed again). The fighters against Putin, I remember, were giggling at the Bulava - and the rocket, meanwhile, has not only been flying for a long time (and with a fourfold salvo in 20 seconds - a world record unattainable for anyone on Earth), but, what is much more important, in all ... Russia not only preserved, but also significantly increased the key technologies, and now everything is fine with us. More than 20 launches in a row have been successful, including salvo launches. Putin haaters at one time squatted on "self-destruction of the 2nd missile", but in that case it was conceived, one missile was carried to the BB training ground, and the second was not even fully equipped, it simply created a starting background for simulating volley fire, the military wanted to make sure that, when launched in a salvo, the rocket will not deviate and the accuracy of the hit will be preserved).
            Again, on some forums, it was fun to read at one time about the fact that the Bulava pier is "small" (36,5 tons, and the trident-2D5 is 56 tons) and carries a combat load half that of the trident. Here, after all, this is the case - we have made tremendous progress in warheads, and the Americans, on the contrary, have fallen back on the "heads" of the development of the 70s (and they did not have our current level in their best years). In theory, it is believed that up to 30 pieces of 10 kt warheads can be hung on the P-150, the Trident limit is 14 warheads of 100 kt, which is generally close, but the truth is that no one will install that much anyway. Well, if the task is not set to cover New York with one rocket. The fact is that the energy of the breeding platform (which guides the warheads at the target) is limited, and if 14 warheads are placed on the Trident, then all 14 of them will have to be dumped side by side, on one target. In reality, more than 2 warheads of 8 kt were not installed on T100, but now there are 4-5 warheads, on some missiles even 3 (because the Trident's breeding module is completely miserable, it simply does not allow aiming heads at targets significantly distant from each other - and there are not so many group goals). Bulava's breeding module is many times more powerful, therefore, the restrictions on goals for her are more liberal.
            The newest French M51 is larger than the Bulava - while in theory it flies only 9000 km, and with fewer blocks (maximum 4 blocks of 300 kt, which have not yet been created, but there are only 100 kt warheads). The French have been sawing this rocket since the beginning of the 90s - and only in 2016 it entered service, and in fact, in fact, in experimental operation, very few tests were carried out, in May 2013, when launched from a nuclear submarine, the rocket exploded immediately after launch - in general, everything is there far from cloudless. In June 2020, they conducted a test with one block, which seemed to be successful, but at a distance of less than 6000 km.
            Moreover, initially, the M51 missile was supposed to have a range of up to 11000 km, be equipped with a MIRV with a number of warheads up to 10 and have on board a complex of means of overcoming missile defense (KSP ABM) - but the industry failed, and the sturgeon was first cut down to 10000 km and 6 MIRVs , then up to 9000 km and 4 MIRVs and KSP, placed instead of warheads. In the course of work on the M51 program, they began to create an essentially new infrastructure for testing the rocket and its parts, perhaps they will do something (albeit much more modest than ours).
            In the United States, all this is profaned - so Trident's replacement is no longer in sight.
            The British have a Trident-2 D5 missile - American. She comes to the British ready, and nothing in it can not be altered. The only British detail in it is the Warhead. It is also made on the basis of the design of the old American head, but still made in Britain. Because the British doubt that American warheads will explode at all - and missiles, at the very least, can be selectively tested. So we have experienced it.
            An unsuccessful launch was made in the summer of 2016. Immediately after launch, the Trident II D5 rocket flew towards the American coast and crashed near Florida. Note - the rocket rotted so much that it did not even self-destruct when the flight modes were violated (this is a complete scribe)))).
            Americanophiles just now can tell us about "the brilliant statistics of test launches of these missiles in the US Navy: 156, of which 151 were successful (134 in a row)."
            And the little box opens simply - the "test launch" for the Americans consists in the exit of the missile from the SSBN silo and its self-destruction even before the 1st stage is completed after 45 seconds of flight. The meaning of this "test" is to test the ability of the nuclear submarine and its crew to launch a missile. Where the rocket will fly, whether anything works for it, except for the 1st stage with the simplest automatic trajectory stabilization - nobody cares.
            Moreover - Trident-2 is thrown out of the mine by a steam-gas mixture, the first stage engine is turned on after the rocket is pushed out of the water to a height of about 20 m.Accordingly, even if it does not work at all, American submariners have the opportunity to move away from the rocket, blow up its self-liquidator, and report on the "successful launch." Which is what they do.
            The last real test launch, with the delivery of mock warheads to the range and an assessment of the accuracy of their hit, was in the United States in 1989. So figure out for yourself what the Americans carry in their nuclear submarines)))
            On the American military forums, the locals joked that Tridents are so ancient excrements that only Russian hackers with scores could interfere with the rocket flight program))
      6. Sarmat Sanych
        Sarmat Sanych 3 August 2020 16: 45 New
        +2
        mvg, stop talking nonsense. BY THE WAY, "IN" REMOVED MY FIRST COMMENT, THEREFORE I DUPLICATE ALL QUESTIONS ON THE SECOND REVIEW IMMEDIATELY: The US Navy hid the failed launch of Trident in 2011, a senior source in the US Armed Forces told The Times. According to the Daily Mail, the exact cause of the accident is still unknown. It is noted that this type of missile has had navigation problems for decades. The developers even received an additional $ 270 million to urgently fix the glitch in the guidance system. The Trident IID5 guidance system has been malfunctioning repeatedly and has been linked to chemical reactions that occur during extended storage. According to published Pentagon documents, the United States spent $ 6 billion over 2 years on technical issues and upgrades. The United States naturally demanded that Britain keep secret the information about the unsuccessful launch of the Trident II D5 in June 2016.
        According to The Sunday Times, the first exercises in 4 years were held in June 2016 off the coast of Florida, but their failure became known only in mid-2017. The missile, launched from the strategic submarine missile carrier Venjens, went off course and flew towards the United States. The failed launch came shortly before Theresa May took over as head of government. However, she never mentioned the incident when she convinced parliament to spend £ 40 billion on the Trident modernization program in July 2017.
        After the first tests in four years ended in disaster, panic was at the highest level, as a result, Downing Street decided to hide the fact of failure. They knew what damage it would do to the credibility of nuclear deterrence if the information were revealed, a source in the Kingdom's Defense Ministry told the newspaper.
        The incident happened just weeks before the House vote on the fate of Trident 2D5.
        By the way, 60% of all American warheads are deployed on Tridents, and if they don't fly, then shit.
        And the new USA cannot do it. Polymers are profane.
        The last batch of INS Mk6 was ordered within the budget of the 2001 financial year, the resumption of its production was recognized as unprofitable. It is necessary to develop a completely new ANN - and there is no one.
        The last Trident 2 (with the same ANN from 2001) were shipped in 2007, and that's it. The program for the supply of 108 missiles in 2008-2012 was estimated at $ 15 billion (139 million per missile) - but they did not even start it, because the industry "did not do it."
        The W88 warheads are inoperative (if necessary, I will explain in more detail), so all Tridents carry the old W76 100 kt. However, there are also problems with them - and the point is not even that they are ancient like the shit of a mammoth (and it is also impossible to "sort" them endlessly), but that with a relatively low power they have a much higher CEP (that is poor hitting accuracy). To destroy a mine with Voevoda or Yars missiles, you need to develop a shock wave pressure of 200 atm in the head area - while W76 develops, when used from a Trident-2D5 missile, only 50 atm with a probability of 70%, the probability of developing 200 atm for this warhead virtually zero, that is, all Russian missiles in the mines will survive.
        Out of despair, the "exceptional" ones came up with the idea of ​​equipping the W76 unit with a GPS receiver, a simplified INS and flap steering system. This, according to the idea, would make it possible to correct the trajectory of the warhead during the passage of dense layers of the atmosphere and increase the accuracy of the hit. But this is such an obvious chimera that they simply did not give money for it.
        Therefore, it is not surprising that Trump spoke on Fox News in 2016 about "rotten US nuclear missiles, while (literally)" the Russians are in full production of new missiles, the Russians have such a powerful nuclear strike potential that we can only dream of. " It was only later that old Donald began to build a good face on a bad game.
        The United States has problems in the entire nuclear triad, and for a long time. Already the D5 rockets that Lockheed shipped in 2001-2007 - they are "new" only on paper, this is a composite hodgepodge of all the rubbish collected from all the storerooms. Actually, the British missile that has turned up is one of those last deliveries.
    3. Yuriy71
      Yuriy71 2 August 2020 19: 06 New
      +3
      Moreover, there was information from the Americans themselves, where they cried that a lot in these mines is still controlled by five-inch floppy disks of the late 80s - early 90s!
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 2 August 2020 20: 24 New
        +2
        Moreover, there was information from the Americans themselves, where they cried that a lot in these mines is still controlled by five-inch floppy disks of the late 80s - early 90s!
        This in itself is not bad. The simpler the mechanism, the more reliable. But coupled with the degradation of personnel, this is already serious and systemic.
    4. lis-ik
      lis-ik 2 August 2020 21: 09 New
      -2
      Quote: Finches
      It would be better for their scrap metal "Minuteman" 1960 release followed

      Minuteman 3 is quite modern. They are now also undergoing modernization.
    5. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. 3 August 2020 16: 51 New
      -1
      Quote: Finches
      It would be better if they watched their 1960 Minuteman scrap metal - and not talked about Sarmat! And then some offended nigra will take and press a button to amuse his idleness and take revenge on the whole white world ...


      In fact, they upgraded their Minuteman III, installing the Advanced Inertial Reference Sphere (AIRS) inertial guidance system developed for the LGM-118A Peacekeeper (MX), providing level accuracy and warheads from MX.
      So, in terms of the totality of its combat properties, this is a completely different Minuteman, which was originally adopted for service.
      Domestic guidance systems do not provide such accuracy.



      In 1993, the United States and the Russian Federation signed the START II treaty aimed at banning heavy ground-based ICBMs with multiple warheads. The reason was that, being the optimal first-strike weapon, heavy ICBMs were highly vulnerable and poorly suited to retaliatory strikes - thereby contributing to escalation and upsetting the strategic balance. According to the agreement, it was supposed to remove from service the R-36M (Russia) and MX (USA) missiles. The agreement was signed, however, it was not ratified by the parliaments of both countries.
      The Russian parliament refused to ratify the treaty, citing the fact that heavy ICBMs constitute an important part of the Russian strategic arsenal, and Russia does not have the funds to replace them with an equivalent number of light monoblock ICBMs. In view of this, the US Congress also refused to ratify the treaty. The situation was in an uncertain position until 2003, when, in response to the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty, Russia announced the termination of START II.
      Despite the termination of START II, ​​the United States nevertheless decided to unilaterally comply with its requirements and limit its first strike arsenal. In this regard, MX missiles began to be withdrawn from service in 2003; in 2005 the last missile was decommissioned and the 90th Strategic Missile Wing was deactivated. The W87 and W88 warheads removed from missiles were used to replace old types of warheads with Minuteman III ICBMs; the rockets themselves have been converted into space launch vehicles and used to launch satellites.
      Source: http://nevskii-bastion.ru/missile-system-mx-peacekeeper/ VTS "NEVSKY BASTION" AVKarpenko
  2. Andobor
    Andobor 2 August 2020 21: 07 New
    +1
    Quote: Ilya-spb
    I have a feeling that the Americans are simply jealous of the successes of our military-industrial complex.

    Of course, they envy, and tear their hair on their ass, they relied on the weapon of hybrid wars - the collapse of Russia following the example of the Union or taking control of the Russian elite following the example of Ukraine, and they abandoned their strategic weapons, but it turned out to be a bummer, and it’s too late to catch up, we fell behind hopelessly..
    1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
      Boris ⁣ Shaver 2 August 2020 22: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: Andobor
      but it was a bummer

      Eeee. As for the elite, I would not jump to conclusions.
  • Poetry
    Poetry 2 August 2020 17: 20 New
    -2
    We, of course, do not know how to make super-super-missiles as quickly, but if they do it "for sure", that is, for sure.
    1. orionvitt
      orionvitt 2 August 2020 18: 02 New
      +6
      Quote: Poetiszaugla
      We, of course, do not know how to make super-super-missiles as quickly.

      They can do everything. There is simply no special need, as during the arms race in the last cold war. And they write correctly here. let the Americans look at themselves better, with their "Minetmen". It seems that they not only do not know how to "tinker quickly", but have generally forgotten how to do anything like that.
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 2 August 2020 17: 20 New
    +1
    Haste is needed when catching fleas.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 2 August 2020 17: 23 New
    -1
    This is just a reassurance, so that it does not work out like with the Bulava - for the sake of the report on the work done, the "raw" rocket was received at the exit, while they taught it to fly. ... So, haste is inappropriate here.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 2 August 2020 20: 26 New
      -1
      This is just a reassurance, so that it does not work out like with the Bulava - for the sake of the report on the work done, the "raw" rocket was received at the exit, while they taught it to fly. ... So, haste is inappropriate here.
      With Bulava, the approach turned out to be more western (accidentally): to make and then finish for a long time. But with Sarmat, our approach is more traced: to make a chraza is good, even if it takes a long time.
  • nPuBaTuP
    nPuBaTuP 2 August 2020 17: 26 New
    +3
    They love to throw down mattresses ...
    Russia spends decades on Sarmat .... But do they themselves spend years on development?
    Their minutemans have been gathering dust in their mines since the 60s ...
  • Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 2 August 2020 17: 38 New
    +8
    As long as the "Voevoda" is alive, the assault is not required. The mattresses cannot intercept these not new missiles. So the quiet planned creation, testing and development of the "Sarmat" is the most reasonable approach. Along the way, you can spit in the direction of ancient mattress rockets, drug addicts on launchers, one key for three shelves, etc. But why? Everyone knows this, it is not worth stirring up.
  • Irek
    Irek 2 August 2020 17: 49 New
    -1
    The old is not old, but the point is press - press.
  • 7,62h54
    7,62h54 2 August 2020 17: 50 New
    +2
    Yes, decades. And two decades are already behind.
  • shinobi
    shinobi 2 August 2020 17: 50 New
    +8
    And where to rush, actually? You and the analogue "Voevoda" do not. And apparently, it will never be in principle. The whole more or less working arsenal, these are Tridents with Tomahawks. We must pay tribute, the Trident 3 is a good car. Though aging , but in a number of parameters it surpasses everything that our naval strategic nuclear forces have, including the Bulava. Well, axes are axes. It's unpleasant, of course, but no more. After the Syrian events, they stopped taking them seriously. And in general, reading the American press, you get a strange impression We are going to build superheavy for flights to the moon and to Mars, and have not been able to cut a decent land ICBM since the days of the Minuteman. How is this possible?
    1. Ilshat
      Ilshat 2 August 2020 17: 54 New
      -9
      There is no need.
      Now, if relations with China deteriorate radically, they will file it.
      They are not afraid of Russia.
      1. shinobi
        shinobi 2 August 2020 18: 11 New
        +4
        They will not wash, they have lost the entire production base in 90. This is how I, I asked a rhetorical question. They do not modernize their factories. It is not profitable. Has worked the estimated time, is outdated, they are demolishing and building a new one using new technologies. A feature of their industrial culture. Maybe so. and it is necessary, but it takes time. So, they did not gash new ones and do not say what they are going to.
        1. Ilshat
          Ilshat 2 August 2020 18: 17 New
          0
          What critical have they lost, in your opinion?
          Applied to solid-propellant ICBMs.
          1. shinobi
            shinobi 2 August 2020 18: 27 New
            +1
            In general, nothing. The concept itself is outdated. Even in comparison with tridents. The fact is that there is no clear understanding of what kind of ICBM it should be.
      2. Sidor Amenpodestovich
        Sidor Amenpodestovich 2 August 2020 18: 44 New
        -2
        Quote: Ilshat
        They are not afraid of Russia.

        Let me guess why.
        Because in the States all Russian money is with children, right?
        Hosspadi! ..
        1. Ilshat
          Ilshat 2 August 2020 18: 49 New
          -10
          No, because the Russian leadership is cowardly and not decisive.
          So it was before, when Khrushchev was scared, and now cowards are in power.
          1. Sidor Amenpodestovich
            Sidor Amenpodestovich 2 August 2020 18: 53 New
            +6
            Quote: Ilshat
            No, because the Russian leadership is cowardly and not decisive.
            So it was before, when Khrushchev, and now the ssykunishki are in power.

            Your comment is exactly what is called "change shoes in a jump".
            Instead of children, it was necessary to urgently come up with something, but there was not enough time and imagination, therefore, a feeble nonsense came out.
            1. Ilshat
              Ilshat 2 August 2020 18: 56 New
              -9
              True galleries?
              Remind you about this coronavirus?
              How did the lukashka react and how did our ...?
              To be afraid - you need a share of frostbite and recklessness!
              Victory or Paradise!
              They are not afraid of the markers - while it is too late.
              1. Sidor Amenpodestovich
                Sidor Amenpodestovich 2 August 2020 19: 02 New
                +5
                Quote: Ilshat
                you need a share of frostbite and recklessness!

                A share of frostbite and recklessness is needed only so that in a twenty-degree frost, being drunk, to jump into an ice-hole.
                In all other cases, this is a sign of a small mind. And you probably get your ideas about the qualities of national leaders from films like Fast and the Furious. On the screen it looks impressive for close-minded people, but has nothing to do with reality.
                1. Ilshat
                  Ilshat 2 August 2020 19: 05 New
                  -5
                  Nope, I didn't look ...
                  I don't even know about what.
                  1. Sidor Amenpodestovich
                    Sidor Amenpodestovich 2 August 2020 19: 06 New
                    -2
                    Of course, of course, hehe!
                    1. Ilshat
                      Ilshat 2 August 2020 19: 08 New
                      -1
                      I haven't looked at the matrix either ...
                      And Game of Thrones too ...
                      And what?!
                      However - do not believe it and okay.
                      Even without films I have enough examples from life.
          2. Sarmat Sanych
            Sarmat Sanych 3 August 2020 17: 16 New
            +1
            Ilshat, I duplicated yesterday's deleted VO review about completely non-working American "tridents" there above. They are weak and underdeveloped, this is the bottom line. With regards to the "indecision" of our leadership, then at least you yourself believe in this nonsenselaughing? We took the Crimea and the collective West, even militarily, did not utter a reply, we liberated 90% of Syria by expelling the Americans and the British and the Saudis and the Turks and the French and the Jews from there, and the collective West only swallowed in response. We drove the Americans out of Venezuela, now we control its largest oil reserves on the planet - the States have signed their helplessness. We took for ourselves 50% of the World Arctic the size of Western Europe - and no one even yelled at us. Everything is cognized in conjunction, Ilshat. Who on Earth is more decisive than the leadership of Russia, name me?
        2. Sarmat Sanych
          Sarmat Sanych 2 August 2020 19: 14 New
          +5
          Sidor, stop repeating this rubbish. Even the most repulsed pro-Western official, back in 2014, took all the money out of this plague American barrack. And who did not have time - 6 years ago the mattress covers were confiscated.
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 2 August 2020 18: 01 New
      -3
      Quote: shinobi
      and hasn't been able to cut down a decent land ICBM since the days of the Minuteman. How is this possible?

      What for? They will get from Europe and without them
      1. shinobi
        shinobi 2 August 2020 18: 18 New
        +1
        You don’t stuff a lot on a medium-range missile. You will need a lot of them, one for each charge. And here we, for some century, have an advantage. Iskanders, those are still things. Just in response, there will be more. And now there are calibers. Let's see.
      2. nPuBaTuP
        nPuBaTuP 2 August 2020 18: 58 New
        0
        They will get from Europe and without them

        and what will be the bullet from the geyrope? .... except for the Tribaltic lions and the Polish hyena, no one will be allowed to post ... so let's surprise ...
    3. Lara Croft
      Lara Croft 2 August 2020 19: 18 New
      0
      Quote: shinobi
      We must pay tribute, Trident 3 is a good car.

      Can you tell us more about Trident-3, all the more aging?
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 2 August 2020 18: 17 New
    0
    It is expensive to put into service a new missile.
  • wdgnza
    wdgnza 2 August 2020 18: 17 New
    -6
    All minutemans undergo modernization, when the expediency of modernization will no longer be, they develop a new ICBM to replace them, they are also in no hurry.
    1. shinobi
      shinobi 2 August 2020 18: 43 New
      +3
      Solid fuels are good because they are easy to manufacture and maintain. In the medium term, they are even more profitable than liquid fuels. In the long term, on the contrary. Solid fuel tends to decompose and simply cannot be replaced with liquid fuels where it is simply routinely drained for replacement. It is also a significant drawback. in the efficiency of dvigunov. With comparable sizes, liquid drags by 30% more. The closest analogue of Minuteman is Yars. But only on dry performance characteristics. Different tones and tasks.
    2. 5-9
      5-9 3 August 2020 09: 38 New
      0
      Ha!!! So it was developed .. back in the 80s .... with simply amazing characteristics .... Piskiper or MX was called and even fifty of them were made .... but then during START they decided to cut them off, and not the old Minuteman even then. ..so the new ICBM is not that simple
  • Ruswolf
    Ruswolf 2 August 2020 18: 32 New
    +3
    Comparing our and American terms is probably not entirely correct. Different approaches and technologies.
    But I think that we have a lot more advantages, including, we do not give modernization as a new development. What we are developing, we are doing with a great backlog for the future, which allows us to modernize and operate existing weapons with the addition of modern technologies. This approach makes it possible to calmly engage in the development of new weapons.
  • Do not care
    Do not care 2 August 2020 18: 45 New
    -8
    ... by the American National Interest


    Enough already writing nonsense. National Interest is a Russian publication registered in America. It was overbought and is completely controlled by the Russian special services through dummies. In their language, this is called an "agent of influence."
    1. Interlocutor
      Interlocutor 2 August 2020 18: 49 New
      +2
      National Interest is a Russian publication registered in America. It was overbought and is completely controlled by the Russian special services through dummies.


      Is there any confirmation of your words?
      1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
        Boris ⁣ Shaver 2 August 2020 22: 26 New
        +3
        Quote: Interlocutor
        is there any confirmation of your words?

        In the rain that was not bought by anyone, they said, go
      2. Iwan_de
        Iwan_de 2 August 2020 23: 22 New
        -4
        Google to the rescue
        1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
          Boris ⁣ Shaver 3 August 2020 00: 15 New
          0
          Wretchedly. You don't expect anything else from such, of course.
    2. Sarmat Sanych
      Sarmat Sanych 3 August 2020 17: 22 New
      +1
      Do not care, do not repeat the jaded nonsense. The National Interest's supervisory board includes (all of a sudden) Hillary Clinton, a number of professors from American universities (and only Simes is Russian-speaking there), one congressman, one former senator, and in addition 1 board member of one of the largest American media holdings. Where is who "Russia bought"wassat?
  • al252ex
    al252ex 2 August 2020 20: 55 New
    -4
    Again, you measure yourself with pipis. Under the capitalist system, our bourgeoisie will give everything to the Americans without war. Gazprom is crying that they don’t want to take its gas abroad, we have to raise the price from our pockets by 3 percent more. China doesn’t want to give goods for free, everyone started poke your fingers and threaten bombs. You need to understand that it is difficult to build plants for the production of titanium or nickel in a radioactive zone, to extract oil and gas on the shelf. The Americans understand this and save on their rockets. And they invest in those projects where they can get more from pi .. ... th.
    1. Sarmat Sanych
      Sarmat Sanych 3 August 2020 17: 24 New
      +1
      al252ex, change the left-hand manual, this one is already outdated
  • Old26
    Old26 2 August 2020 21: 50 New
    +8
    Quote: Finches
    They were put into service, but naturally they were finished with a file while undergoing modernization, but our Voivode was adopted at 78, and the last modification of the R-36M2, already in 1988, was put into operation. However, to be correct in comparisons, the closest colleague of their Minuteman is not the Voivode, but Poplar!

    The voivode was not put into service in 1978. In 1978, it was put into service with the R-36M (15A14) ICBM, and the Voevoda is the name of a specific modification of this family - the R-36M2 (15A18M) missile, so it was put into service in 1988.
    The difference between us and the Americans is that we are not going through the cycle of modernization that the Americans do. In particular, they were able to achieve technology for replacing the bonded solid propellant charge on an industrial scale. Therefore, one of the subprograms of the general LEP life extension program just led to the replacement of solid propellant charges. The result is that we have a massive write-off of the Topol, which are almost the same age as the Minutemans-3, and they have an extension of their service life until about 2030

    Quote: nPuBaTuP
    Can you provide information on the latest upgrades of the Minutemans? .. You know at least a year?

    I understand that the question is not for me, but I can give the answer just below

    Quote: Finches
    According to open sources, the last thing they modernized was the power plant in 2004.

    Not certainly in that way. The LEP program, for which work is underway to modernize the Minutemans. started in 1996 and completed in 2013. These are the following subroutines

    1. Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) - A program for the replacement of guidance systems.
    Started in 1996. Completed in 2008
    According to the program, on-board computers, amplifiers, guidance systems (from NS-20A to NS-50) and platform electronics were replaced.

    2. Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP) - The program for the replacement of power plants.
    Started in 1998, completed in 2009
    Complete replacement of solid fuel in all stages of missiles, including boosters. as well as the related integration of new hardware and software.

    3. ICBM Security Modernization Program - Security upgrade program.
    Started in 2004, completed in 2011
    Strengthening the security of launchers and missiles by updating technical security equipment.

    4. Rapid Execution and Combat Targeting (REACT) - Program for the modernization of targeting systems.
    Started in 1997, completed in 2006
    Update missile guidance systems. Significantly reduced the time to transfer missiles to new targets.

    5. Safety Enhanced Reentry Vehicle (SERV) - Warhead replacement program.
    Held from 2002 to 2009
    Replacing missile warheads with more advanced Mk21-W87, 300 kT remaining after the removal of the LGM-118 Peacekeeper missile.

    6. Propulsion System Rocket Engine (PSRE) - Program for updating the rocket power plant. Started in 2004, completed in 2013
    Replacing the components of the sustainer engine.

    As a result, in fact, under the old names "Minuteman-3", the Americans have practically updated missiles
    The Americans are doing the same with the Trident-2, but unlike the Minutemans, which have not been produced for a long time, the Americans periodically produce Tridents in small batches.

    Quote: Ilshat
    I have absolutely no respect for Americans.
    And I do not wish them well.
    But, I think the important point is an adequate assessment of the situation.
    It is impossible to fall into both capricious and defeatist moods.
    Unfortunately, in my, possibly erroneous, impression - here many people think that the cap is a manifestation of patriotism.

    It's good that the Americans are failing with modernization.
    But they changed the fuel, i.e. their missiles cannot be called not workable rubbish of the 60s of release.
    And not only fuel, they did something else and - most likely - the missiles are combat-ready.

    Nobody forces you to love your opponent, but it is still worth respecting his achievements. Otherwise, we slide down to the hats, and how the hats ends are well known from the example of the Great Patriotic War. The slogan "with little blood, a lightning strike and on foreign territory" turned into the fact that we retreated to the Volga.
    The Americans are doing quite well with modernization, especially when it comes to strategic nuclear forces. Now work has begun on creating a replacement for Minuteman-3 and Trident-2. The problems that they now face with the creation of new nuclear charges can be solved. Only two things are needed: money and time. There is money - the time factor remains. So their strategic nuclear forces are combat-ready. The same B-52 is older than our oldest TU-95 by two decades. However, they are modernizing (both him and other types of bombers). Considering that the likelihood of a Russia-US collision is rather small, they calmly stretch their modernization over time.

    Quote: Sarmat Sanych
    There are only cosmetic changes

    We would have such cosmetic changes. Maybe then they would not have copied Poplar en masse

    Quote: mvg
    Well, Voevoda, when was the last time you flew? In 2009? How many are there? About 30 pcs?

    Judging by open data, since 2017 there are about 22-26

    Quote: shinobi
    Well, well, comrade, do not misinterpret! Roar, this is the same Voevoda. Only with the Breeze accelerator, instead of nuclear blocks.

    "Rokot" was never a "Voevoda" as a girl. "Voivoda is Yangelevskaya 15A18M, and Rokot is Chelomeevskaya 15A35. And with boosters for various purposes, it was launched into space under the names Rokot and Strela. Voevoda was never used as a conversion launch vehicle. Modification P was used. -36M UTTH or 15A18 under the name "Dnepr"

    Quote: Lara Croft
    Old 26 also writes.

    Long or nonsense? laughing If it is long, there is such a drawback, the habit of trying to convey information to the interlocutor. And sometimes you cannot say it briefly. I fully support Maxim's words about how and how many Trident-2's trouble-free launches were. The rocket is indeed with a very high degree of reliability and they had about one and a half hundred successive non-emergency launches.

    Quote: shinobi
    You don’t stuff a lot on a medium-range missile. You will need a lot of them, one for each charge. And here we, for some century, have an advantage. Iskanders, those are still things. Just in response, there will be more. And now there are calibers. Let's see.

    In "Pioneer" they managed to "shove" three charges. Why should there be one now? The only problem is that, having reactivated the Hercules plant, they will be able to quickly increase the number of missiles, incl. and medium range. We are not. We have the only factory that does everything. And it's not rubber. If we now rivet Iskanders, we will have to reduce the number of new ICBMs and SLBMs, if new MRBMs too ... So you really need to watch, but not through rose-colored glasses "we will tear everyone apart" ...

    Quote: shinobi
    There is also a significant drawback in the efficiency of motors.

    The question is not in the efficiency of dviguns, but in the specific impulse of the fuel. It is higher in liquid than in solid fuel. Plus, liquid fuel throttle operation is possible in a wider range

    Quote: Ruswolf
    But I think that we have a lot more advantages, including, we do not give modernization as a new development.

    How we give it out. Sometimes, and vice versa, we issue a new one for modernization. In particular, do you know that Yars originally had (and now has the designation "Topol-MR". So think, this is a new development or modernization with the replacement of a monoblock with a MIRV ...
    1. Finches
      Finches 2 August 2020 22: 27 New
      0
      And I won't even argue with you! hi
    2. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 3 August 2020 07: 44 New
      +1
      "And how we give it out. Sometimes, and vice versa, we give out a new one for modernization. In particular, do you know that Yars originally had (and now has the designation" Topol-MR ".
      Well, yes, modernization, and Tu22M3 is of course the modernization of Tu22? Then the T90 is a modernization of the T34.
    3. Sarmat Sanych
      Sarmat Sanych 3 August 2020 17: 43 New
      +2
      Old26, you are repeating nonsense from the Internet again. Read about the non-working "trident2 d5" trash above, I explained in detail for mvg. The Americans, in fact, now have not even a third of the "triad" left, especially taking into account the loss of most technologies, and even with the non-working W88 removed.
      And in general, now it is pointless to talk about this young woman who is not finished yet, they have closed for the fifth month about 60% of enterprises (among which, of course, the military-industrial complex), the drop in GDP in June is 53%, for the second quarter 2%.
      The United States today is the USSR 35 years ago. The political situation "the upper classes cannot, the lower classes do not want", the economy is in Op, stuck in Afghanistan for 20 years, the Taliban makes them cancer. Living Dead Trump and Biden are the only candidates for the presidency. Perestroyka is needed.
      5 million of those infected with covid, of which 160 died, 45 million unemployed, 43 million at the stage of eviction on the street (official figures from the local Ministry of Labor), hundreds of people die every day in shootings (about 120 people were injured that weekend in Chicago alone, some of whom died) , local administrations are periodically captured, and Democrats and Republicans have already announced that they do not recognize the victory of a competitor, Biden enlisted the support of Pentagon chief Esper (literally - "I have acquaintances generals who will withdraw Donald from the White House after the elections"), while the gray cardinal of the Republicans, Steve Bannon mobilized 5 million armed Rednecks (Boogaloo Movement) and so on. Forget about the USA, the new Civil War will multiply them by zero along with their military-industrial complex.
      List of man-made accidents in the United States in recent days, the cause of which has not yet been announced:
      July 12 - fire at UDC Bonhomme Richard
      July 17 - Burns Harbor steel mill fire
      July 17 - fire at Whit Field TPP
      July 17 - Fire at a petrochemical plant in Atlanta
      July 17 - Fire at the Embridge Steel Works
      July 17 - fire at the KearSarge UDC
      July 20 - fire on the aircraft carrier under construction John F. Kennedy
      July 27 - Fire at Coast Guard Base in Honolulu
      July 28 - fire in the industrial area of ​​San Francisco
      July 29 - explosion of a train with chemicals
      July 29 - explosion at an oil refinery in Hehasa
      July 29 - fire at a chemical plant in Michigan
      Total: 8 industrial and 4 military facilities in just over 2 weeks. Plus, at the end of July, an amphibious assault boat with 16 US Marines sank off the coast of California, 1 killed, 8 missing.
      Trump has to go.
      https://youtu.be/UyTZnEVlGl0
      In California bushfires and evacuations of cities again. Year after year the same thing, the local Emergencies Ministry is inactive, there is not enough people and equipment. But "look at Apple's capitalization")))
      From May to July, the seventh crash of American military aircraft took place:
      An F-16 Viper crashed near Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, and the pilot is in hospital, the 49th Squadron of the United States Air Force reported.
      On July 1, an F-16CM crashed at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina. The pilot was killed.
      On June 19, an F-18, assigned to the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, crashed. The pilot lost control of the combat vehicle and was forced to eject.
      On June 15, the F15C Eagle crashed into the North Sea off Flamborough Head. The pilot was killed.
      On June 8, an F-35 crashed while landing at Hill Air Force Base in Utah.
      On May 19, F-35A crashed at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The vehicle belonged to the 58th Fighter Squadron. This is the second plane crash from Eglin base in recent days.
      On May 15, an F-22 Raptor from the 45th FS crashed there.
      Also worth noting is the recent burned down American Udk and C-130, damaged during landing at a US base in Iraq.
      In the US, the fleet is already falling apart:
      https://youtu.be/WTWAVfK2zQg
      and ground forces:
      https://youtu.be/0aXHMrsYzLU
  • Popov I.P.
    Popov I.P. 2 August 2020 21: 58 New
    +4
    “In addition, the missile can be used as a delivery vehicle for guided hypersonic warheads (UBB) capable of maneuvering. They are still under development.” Since 2019, the first regiment of the Strategic Missile Forces of the RF Armed Forces with the Avangard hypersonic warheads has been on alert.
  • Old26
    Old26 2 August 2020 22: 12 New
    +2
    Quote: shinobi
    and has not been able to cut a decent land ICBM since the days of the Minuteman. How is this possible?

    Read the media less. The Americans once made the MX missile, which with the same number of warheads as our "Molodets" was 15 tons lighter. And if it had not been for the collapse of the Union, they would have replaced with this missile, if not all, then most of their "Minutemans". So they could and did it. The fact that they were quickly removed from service is a completely different story.
  • Old26
    Old26 2 August 2020 23: 54 New
    +1
    Quote: Popov I.P.
    “In addition, the missile can be used as a delivery vehicle for guided hypersonic warheads (UBB) capable of maneuvering. They are still under development.” Since 2019, the first regiment of the Strategic Missile Forces of the RF Armed Forces with the Avangard hypersonic warheads has been on alert.

    The regiment is too strong a word. In the positional area, the 13th taxiway was installed on the so-called DB. "starting minimum", that is, a buried mine control room and two launchers. The open source regiment of the end of 2019 should be completely on the DB sometime in 2023. Both regiments - according to the same sources - by 2027
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 3 August 2020 00: 21 New
    0
    I read all the comments. Two points of view. Everything is bad for us, our missiles are metal, the United States is ahead of the rest of the planet. The second option is not only metal, but they also lost the technology for producing warheads, but everything is fine with us. And I see this dispute with 12 years when I found the VO website. I have a question why the Americans are scaring us with free-falling nuclear bombs if they are doing well with missiles. And the question is for ours if the United States withdraws from START 3, and it comes out, what will it give us. And the third question we we mutually have observers monitoring the number of missiles produced in factories and checking the number of missiles on duty and, most importantly, the number of warheads in the missile. Thanks in advance for your answers.
  • rashikdelmar
    rashikdelmar 3 August 2020 06: 26 New
    -1
    And here everything is done this way, and by the finish line it becomes obsolete and becomes more expensive at times, for example, the scientific unit to the ISS, which RGZ boasted that it would be sent on March 21, was supposed to fly away 13 years ago
    1. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 3 August 2020 07: 39 New
      0
      Let me tell you a secret, this is how it is done everywhere. It is immediately clear that you have never created anything new or solved difficult issues. But don't worry: someone who is not made for inventions can become a critic.
      1. Aag
        Aag 3 August 2020 12: 22 New
        0
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        data

        Let me disagree. Earlier, under the Soviet Union, the general public learned about new models of weapons only after these same models were adopted, put into service, and mastered by personnel! And not as often happens now: more tests did not end, and the urapatriots, without getting up from the sofas, defeated everyone thus having no analogues.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 3 August 2020 07: 38 New
    -1
    Satan may be outdated morally, but if necessary, he will show that he is not outdated physically. The US has the same old missiles.
  • Old26
    Old26 3 August 2020 13: 01 New
    +1
    Quote: tralflot1832
    I read all the comments. Two points of view. Everything is bad for us, our missiles are metal, the United States is ahead of the rest of the planet. The second option is not only metal, but they also lost the technology for producing warheads, but everything is fine with us. And I see this dispute with 12 years when I found the VO website. I have a question why the Americans are scaring us with free-falling nuclear bombs if everything is fine with their missiles.

    Dear Andrey! There are many more points of view. But remember, in the series "The X-Files" at the beginning of each episode was the phrase "The truth is somewhere nearby." It's the same here. These two points of view that you are writing about are extreme and have no real confirmation. They will argue for a very, very long time. In reality, everything is much more difficult to say in this one phrase.
    Not everything is bad with us, and not everything is bad with them. In this regard, we have parity with regard to strategic nuclear forces. Yes, the Americans have some weapons systems that are much older than ours. Take the same "Minuteman-3" or B-52. But both systems are regularly upgraded. In some ways, they "bypassed" us in terms of modernization. Take the same "Minuteman". The volume of modernization is such that under the old name they actually have updated missiles. They were able to bring to industrial use the technology of replacing bonded solid propellant charges. Therefore, they change their fuel charges for the next 20 years, and we are forced to write off our solid propellants after operation for 3 decades. For a quarter of a century, we have written off almost 4 hundred Topols, and they have also reduced their arsenal of Minutemans standing on the database by 50 units. EMNIP.

    Nobody frightens us with free-falling nuclear bombs. This work is exclusively for our media. Speaking about the fact that Russia surpasses the United States in the number of tactical nuclear warheads, does everyone really think that these are only the warheads of operational-tactical missiles? We will have a couple of hundred such missiles for the first salvo (and by no means a guarantee that this whole salvo is exclusively nuclear charges. Well, let there be ammunition for the second and third volleys. Well, some more charges for CD in aviation. And the rest are a couple -Three thousand tactical charges, what are they? Exactly the same free-falling bombs for aviation.

    Quote: tralflot1832
    And the question for ours is if the United States withdraws from START 3, and it does, what will it give us.

    This only means that we will have to tighten our belts again. There will be no restrictions on carriers, which means that they will be able to build them up much faster than martyrs. True, they still have the question of equipping such missiles with nuclear warheads. Here everything is not so purple. At least they will not be able to produce new nuclear warheads in the next 10 years, but they will be able to modernize the old ones to be installed on "new" carriers. How much is an open question.
    We will not be able to quickly increase the number of new carriers. We only have one plant. Then you have to build another one, and this is several years. So, in this regard, not everything is purple with us.

    Quote: tralflot1832
    And the third question, we mutually have observers monitoring the number of missiles produced at factories and checking the number of missiles on duty and, most importantly, the number of warheads in the missile. Thank you in advance for your answers.

    As far as I know, there are no inspectors at the factories, but inspections at the deployment sites - yes, they are carried out quite regularly. The task is to check the number of deployed media and the number of BBs on the media. In contrast to previous contracts, the counting system is now somewhat different. If, for example, the number of BB on the rocket with which it passed the test was previously considered, now it is only in fact. Either the net, they sat down when checking a certain missile division of the Ensky missile regiment of the Ensky division, it turns out that 2 missiles have 3 warheads each, and the third - the maximum possible number, that is, 6, then they consider 3 + 3 + 6 = 2. Earlier believed that three missiles with 6 warheads - a total of 18. Now - in fact

    Quote: silberwolf88
    well, you are twitching a little ... if you take 15A14 and 15 A18 ... these are similar products that differ (if you take fundamental decisions) only by an additional dilution stage of 18 (for 14 bludgeoned with monoblocks of 10 Mt each) ... but 15A18M ( she is the Voivode ... she is Satan and so on) a completely different rocket ... similar BUT we can say that a completely new product ... and the first regiments were put in Kartaly and Derzhavinsk in 85 - 86 years (78 is not appropriate here)

    I understand that your answer is the answer to Zyablitsev, but I absolutely agree with you. It's just that we have an opinion that the ICBM known in the west under the designation SS-18 (aka "Satan" and "Voyevoda" is one and the same product. Many do not understand that this is a "family" of three missiles, different from each other sometimes less, sometimes more.

    Quote: Victor Sergeev
    "And how we give it out. Sometimes, and vice versa, we give out a new one for modernization. In particular, do you know that Yars originally had (and now has the designation" Topol-MR ".
    Well, yes, modernization, and Tu22M3 is of course the modernization of Tu22? Then the T90 is a modernization of the T34.

    I wanted to write about the TU-22Mx - and forgot. With TU-22M0-TU-22M3 exactly the opposite. A completely new car retained the old designation and was issued as a modernization of the TU-22

    Quote: Victor Sergeev
    Satan may be outdated morally, but if necessary, he will show that he is not outdated physically. The US has the same old missiles.

    Unfortunately, it is also physically obsolete. The number of these missiles has dropped from about 46 in 2015 to about 22-26 in 2017.
  • BOB044
    BOB044 3 August 2020 15: 14 New
    +1
    Everything will be as it should. Sarmat will arrive when they say and where necessary. We are in no hurry and we will succeed.
  • Old26
    Old26 3 August 2020 19: 28 New
    +1
    Quote: Sarmat Sanych
    Old26, you are repeating nonsense from the Internet again. Read about the non-working "trident2 d5" trash above, I explained in detail for mvg.

    Well, you, of course, are broadcasting the true, uncomplicated truth from the documents of the Pentagon and the US KNSH. Exclusively not from the internet. Truth in that sheet, to a fragment of which I am now answering about the US strategic nuclear forces no NOT A WORD... About anything, about man-made disasters at military facilities, about the number of deaths from a sunken boat, but NOT A WORD about the same number of launches (successful and unsuccessful) of the same "Trident" which was originally discussed. We just "jumped" off the topic, moving the arrows to everything else. But you can hardly give an example of all these launches. Unfortunately, to post a sheet about several hundred launches with the date and time of the launch, where it was produced from, etc. is to clog the topic. This sheet will be cleaner than yours. But only I have it and I don't need to tell what and how happened. Believe me, almost 2 decades of studying, let's say by analyzing information, taught me to treat it very carefully ...
    Therefore, it is unlikely that you should post such large "sheets", trying to prove what in fact you cannot prove. You have an instant "dismount". Ask you, for example, now to give information about the launches of the same "Minuteman" for a certain year and some kind of model - you will again tell us about millions and billions of dollars, fires and so on. But not about the specific question asked ... You don't have to answer, tk. do not provide accurate information on dates, times, etc.

    Quote: BOB044
    Everything will be as it should. Sarmat will arrive when they say and where necessary. We are in no hurry and we will succeed.

    At least, the delay on "Sarmat" is almost 2 years. Initially, the first test launches were planned for early 2018, then for the end of 2018, then for 2019, then for 2020. Something did not go well, since there is such a delay. So first you need to carry out the entire test cycle, and then say "when they say and where they say" ....