Military Review

USA responds to Avangard

143

At the very end of 2019, the Strategic Missile Forces put their first Avangard hypersonic complex on alert. A number of third countries consider this weapon a threat to their security, requiring an appropriate response. A variety of countermeasures and protection measures have been proposed, but their potential remains questionable.


US response


An interesting opinion about the potential of Avangard and responses to such a threat was published on September 18 by The National Interest in the article by Peter Suci "Is the Russian Avangard Hypersonic ICBM a Serious Threat?" The material examines the main features and overall potential of Russian weapons, as well as the means by which the United States can respond to them.

TNI suggests that hypersonic weapons will not necessarily give a potential adversary a significant advantage over the United States. The enemy, with his first strike, can disable American silo launchers with ballistic missiles or strategic bombers at airfields. However, the Pentagon will have the means for a retaliatory strike - first of all, these are submarine ballistic missiles.

They also remind that the United States is developing a promising weapon that will become a deterrent and prevent Russia from using "traditional" intercontinental missiles and the Avangard complex. So, earlier in September, the Pentagon and Northrop Grumman signed a contract for the development of a new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) ICBM worth $ 13,3 billion.

In addition, this year, US President Donald Trump spoke about the presence of a number of modern promising models, incl. own American hypersonic missile. It is claimed to be 17 times faster than any other missile in existence, with a range of thousands of miles and an accuracy of 14 inches.


P. Suci recalled that the description of the American hypersonic missile was questioned. However, even in this case, it is clear that the US armed forces will not allow other countries to break away from them in the field of strategic weapons of intercontinental range.

Symmetric response


The TNI publication does not fully reflect the real views and opinions of the US military and political leadership, but it reveals the main ideas circulating in these circles. In general, the American leadership considers the Avangard complex to be potentially dangerous and requires a response of one kind or another.

In the TNI publication, attention is drawn to the fact that only strike systems are listed as an answer to Avangard. Any missile defense systems are not mentioned at all. In addition, almost immediately we are talking about a retaliatory strike after the destruction of part of the nuclear missile potential while maintaining only the most stable systems.

All this may well be interpreted as a recognition of the fundamental inability of the United States to intercept the most complex hypersonic maneuvering targets. Avangard at a speed of up to 27M and with an intercontinental range is considered capable of guaranteed breaking through the existing missile defense system and hitting objects of strategic importance. However, work on the development of anti-missile defense and the creation of new systems is underway and in the future may give the desired result - however, the timing of this is unknown.

The answer to the Russian hypersonic complex is called land-based and sea-based ICBMs. At the same time, along with the existing missile systems, they mention the promising GBSD, which so far exists only in the form of a preliminary project. Missiles of this type will take over duty in 2027, and until then, the ground component of the nuclear forces will be based on existing Minuteman products. As follows from the available data, GBSD will be a "classic" ICBM with conventional warheads - hypersonic gliders are not expected.


Donald Trump's “super-duper-rocket” that made a lot of noise, according to popular versions, belongs to the category aviation weapons. A strategic aviation complex based on an existing or promising long-range bomber with a hypersonic missile is of high value for the armed forces. It is doubtful, however, that it can be a symmetrical and highly effective response to Avangard.

Provide an advantage


The United States intends to maintain its superiority in the field of armed forces and strategic weapons. For this purpose, new bombers, missiles, hypersonic complexes, etc. are being developed. Measures are also taken to protect their facilities from a possible enemy attack.

Currently, the United States is developing several hypersonic missile systems for different types of troops. Moreover, current programs have several characteristic features. So, the Pentagon has no plans to equip hypersonic warheads with nuclear warheads. In addition, the creation of intercontinental range systems has not yet been reported. Finally, none of the American hypersonic projects - despite commendable optimism and numerous bold statements - have yet to be brought to alert.

Thus, the Russian armed forces have bypassed the most developed foreign army in terms of promising developments. The number of "Vanguards" on duty is still not too large, but even in this case, the newest complex significantly affects the capabilities of the strategic nuclear forces. How soon the United States will be able to complete its projects and ensure parity in such weapons is a big question.


Protection problem


As can be judged, at the moment the US strategic missile defense system is not able to intercept the maneuvering hypersonic unit from the Avangard complex. For this reason, further development of missile defense must be carried out taking into account new threats, which requires a special concentration of forces and significant expenditures.

It is necessary to improve satellite and ground-based missile early warning systems. In flight, the hypersonic unit unmasks itself in the radar and infrared range, which to some extent simplifies its detection. Despite this, high-speed data processing and control loops are required to provide timely response.

The existing missile defense systems are designed to defeat ballistic targets, while hypersonic weapons are maneuvering. Accordingly, there is a need for new means of destruction. It is not known whether it will be possible to create an effective interceptor missile to combat the Avngard or other similar weapons.

Containment issues


The Avangard complex with a number of characteristic features has the highest combat characteristics and can be considered the most advanced type of missile weapons. It is almost impossible to defend against its strike, thanks to which the complex becomes a highly effective means of strategic deterrence capable of seriously influencing the military-political situation.

The US military and political leadership is well aware of this and is trying to take action. In the absence of other solutions, we have to rely only on "traditional" strategic weapons, and this point of view is spreading in the media. How soon this situation will change, and the Avangard can be answered not only with the help of ICBMs, is a big question that does not yet have an answer.
Author:
143 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Odysseus
    Odysseus 22 September 2020 04: 58
    -2
    In fact, as many as 2 "unmatched in the world" missiles UR-100NUTTH from the time of the production of dear Leonid Ilyich were put into service. And the response of the Americans, struck by such unprecedented power, was to completely ignore Mr Putin's calls to sit down at the negotiating table, consistently withdraw from all existing treaties and yesterday's chutzpah demanding that the Russian Federation join the START extension on their terms.
    Well, so in the article everything is written correctly laughing
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 22 September 2020 07: 29
      -5
      Quote: Odyssey
      In fact, as many as 2 "unmatched in the world" missiles UR-100NUTTH from the time of the production of dear Leonid Ilyich were put into service. And the response of the Americans, struck by such unprecedented power, was to completely ignore Mr Putin's calls to sit down at the negotiating table, consistently withdraw from all existing treaties and yesterday's chutzpah demanding that the Russian Federation join the START extension on their terms.
      Well, so in the article everything is written correctly laughing

      Putin's appeals? In my opinion, they made chutzpe with your own words. On the one hand, they will have to spend billions to solve the problem of the vanguard. On the other hand, if the vanguard is not a weapon of a preemptive strike, then what prevents them from covering the mines with a block of 500 kilotons
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 22 September 2020 22: 19
        +2
        Quote: Pilat2009
        Putin's calls?

        Read all of his speeches and speeches of the Foreign Ministry over the past few years - they constantly call on the United States to start negotiations. Think of the famous cartoon performance of 2018. Everyone remembers the cartoons, but the point was that they served the purpose so that they (the leadership of the Russian Federation) would finally be listened to.
        But, alas, the Americans ignore these appeals completely. But in internal propaganda and for pushing military budgets, the "Russian threat" is now used constantly
        Quote: Pilat2009
        on the other hand, if the vanguard is not a preemptive strike weapon

        Vanguard is a new warhead with a missile defense penetration system. Moreover, there is no rocket for it, so I had to put it on an old, unfilled Soviet rocket 40 years ago, which miraculously survived since it was in reserve in the Ukrainian SSR, and then was transferred to the Russian Federation. This missile can be a weapon of any strike, depending on your goals.
        Quote: Pilat2009
        what prevents them from covering the mines with a block of 500 kilotons

        From a technical point of view, nothing. Again, this is just a new warhead with unknown characteristics. Rockets in Tatishchevo in old mines. The old missiles could theoretically be destroyed as well as the new ones. There is no difference. The sad thing here is that poverty is passed off as a virtue - the launch of two 2-year-old missiles is passed off as an "achievement" (and the notorious American missile defense system would have missed the UR-40 with the old warhead as it would with the new one).
        Putting into service and serial production of new Sarmat missiles would be a real achievement and a very important matter for Russia, because our main caliber, the R-36, has long since expired.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 23 September 2020 00: 30
          -8
          Quote: Odyssey
          But, alas, the Americans completely ignore these appeals.

          How can you negotiate with a person who is mired in lies. His words are worth the air it takes to pronounce them.
          Quote: Odyssey
          "Russian threat" is now used constantly

          Not used militarily. All major projects are directed against China and are presented with anti-China rhetoric. The same hypersonic missiles. Russia poses no military threat to the United States.
          Quote: Odyssey
          The sad thing here is that poverty is passed off as a virtue - the launch of two 2-year-old missiles is passed off as an "achievement" (and the notorious American missile defense system would have missed the UR-40 with the old warhead as it would with the new one).

          Agree to 100%
        2. kris_67
          kris_67 23 September 2020 16: 45
          -2
          “But in internal propaganda and for pushing military budgets, the Russian threat is now used constantly” - I liked that. Is it different in Russia? Whichever site you go to - the Americans are preparing for war with Russia, they have almost attacked. Yes, everything is the same.
        3. ZEMCH
          ZEMCH 30 September 2020 01: 27
          0
          Quote: Odyssey
          From a technical point of view, nothing. Again, this is just a new warhead with unknown characteristics. Rockets in Tatishchevo in old mines.

          The mines and control points of the UR100 have been verified in Semipolatinsk by an actual test of nuclear weapons. Withstand up to 1 megaton and remain functional)))
          on an old, unfuel Soviet rocket 40 years ago, miraculously preserved since it was in reserve in the Ukrainian SSR, and then was transferred to the Russian Federation.

          rockets were produced at the Moscow Machine-Building Plant named after M. V. Khrunichev until 1985, returned both from Ukraine and to the Russian Federation remained in storage, conversion rocket ("Rokot")
          The sad thing here is that poverty is passed off as a virtue - the launch of two 2-year-old missiles is passed off as an "achievement" (and the notorious American missile defense system would have missed the UR-40 with the old warhead as it would with the new one).

          After the death of Chelomey, work on the UR-100 was headed by Herbert Efremov, who is also the designer of the Vanguard, naturally, it was decided to put a new unit on the UR-100 until the Sarmat was ready. tests from Dombarovskiy went, so there is a UR-100))). As for the US missile defense, then you are right, they cannot cope with the old warheads either)))
        4. Petrik66
          Petrik66 29 November 2020 18: 13
          0
          Everything is lost? Drain the water? Khodarkovsky for president, Putin and his gang in The Hague?
          Or will we arrange a procession with the cross to the Ukrainian embassy with repentance, and then to the Lithuanian and Latvian ones? are our tanks rusty boxes? Have the missiles rotted long ago due to the lack of Ukrainian spare parts? And the best weapon of the red commander is a PM to shoot himself?
      2. Tcheluskin
        Tcheluskin 23 September 2020 14: 01
        0
        And what is the "Vanguard problem"? That before the Americans could not shoot down most of the 6 warheads of the UR-100N UTTH missile, that now they cannot shoot down one more powerful Vanguard.
        1. kris_67
          kris_67 23 September 2020 16: 58
          -1
          "now they cannot bring down one more powerful Vanguard" - did the Americans tell you?
    2. Civil
      Civil 22 September 2020 07: 51
      +2
      Arms Race - 2, let's see who has more money.
      1. spectr
        spectr 22 September 2020 09: 15
        +2
        The US has more. In addition, judging by the articles, they are preparing for this process in detail, developing a new concept for the accelerated development of high-tech products. If they succeed, then Russia will merge this race, like the previous one, either by an economic collapse or by a gradual lag in all directions.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 22 September 2020 09: 43
          +4
          They have an extremely systematic approach. Now 6 programs are running simultaneously. This means that in each program several weapons systems are developed.
          1. spectr
            spectr 22 September 2020 10: 35
            +1
            It is understandable that finance allows a large number of expensive developments to be carried out simultaneously. It's just that I got the impression that the warriors are now trying to combine two polokho compatible parameters over the hill. Reduce deadlines and at the same time increase the number of "good" projects.
            In Russia, they are trying to solve this in the old fashioned way "to squeeze some organs in a vice for developers." In the United States, they are trying to develop proposals so that developers have the opportunity to avoid this unpleasant procedure.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 22 September 2020 10: 46
              -1
              Quote: spectr
              trying to combine two semi-compatible parameters. Reduce deadlines and at the same time increase the number of "good" projects.

              Quite right. They talk about it openly. The results are already visible. The development speed is frantic. The same T-7 was created in a couple of years.
          2. Volder
            Volder 22 September 2020 10: 45
            +2
            Quote: Grazdanin
            Now 6 programs are running simultaneously. This means that in each program several weapons systems are developed.
            They will chase several hares, not one will be caught. Bring me on to successful American developments that have been put into service over the past 10-15 years.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 22 September 2020 11: 03
              +3
              Aircraft carriers such as "Gerald R. Ford", F35А / В / С, Stryker family, family of armored vehicles MRAP, Bell V-22 Osprey, Virginia nuclear submarine, UDC "America", Landing transport docks of the type "San Antonio", MQ-9 Reaper etc. etc. All this entered the troops in the last 15 years (nuclear submarine in 16 years)
              1. Volder
                Volder 22 September 2020 11: 26
                +1
                Quote: Grazdanin
                Aircraft carriers such as "Gerald R. Ford", F35А / В / С, Stryker family, family of armored vehicles MRAP, Bell V-22 Osprey, Virginia nuclear submarine, UDC "America", Landing transport docks of the type "San Antonio", MQ-9 Reaper etc. etc. All this entered the troops in the last 15 years (nuclear submarine in 16 years)
                There is nothing strategic here. Well, except that the Virginia nuclear submarine can be ranked as a semi-strategic one, in which the rubber outer skin falls off. They still do not have a new aircraft carrier, although it was laid down 15 years ago. The F-35 is like a raw turkey that does not meet modern requirements (1000 flaws, 100 of which are critical - this is serious!).
        2. bandabas
          bandabas 22 September 2020 10: 31
          -1
          We have our own concept - constant increase and introduction of new taxes for citizens.
          1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
            Boris ⁣ Shaver 22 September 2020 14: 33
            +4
            Quote: bandabas
            constant increase and introduction of new taxes for citizens.

            And the systematic destruction of manufacturers / designers. This also includes Skrdyukov's obsessive desire to "combine" all the aircraft-helicopter design bureaus into one, and today's news about claims against shipbuilders for shifts in timelines beyond their control (the delay in delivery associated with the Navy parade, the World Cup and engine supplies was hanged on shipbuilders), and other stuff. At the same time, we are withdrawing money over the hill (according to Glazyev's estimates, the amount of eaten money is close to a trillion dollars - how many weapons could we create with this money?). We help banks, kaa the most in need - a trillion rubles in the banking sector is entered with enviable regularity. And then banks with this money either buy up foreign currency, aggravating the crisis in the Russian Federation and accelerating the fall of the ruble, or they (state money!) Lend them at interest to the executors of government contracts who are forced to take out loans, because the projects ordered by the state customer are not properly funded ... And so on, so on.
            So here and besides the difference in economic development, there is a mountain of problems.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 22 September 2020 16: 59
              -1
              Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
              Here is Skrdyukov's obsessive desire to "unite" all the aircraft-helicopter design bureaus into one

              At the same time, US officials are concerned that in fact there are 3 manufacturers of military aircraft left. They see this as a huge problem and are looking for ways to increase the number of contractors.
          2. Sergey Averchenkov
            Sergey Averchenkov 22 September 2020 16: 07
            +2
            Who do you have? I can't understand you, you are either a libert or a racehorse ... After all, they spoke normally about weapons and here you are with your poop. Do you have that itching in a certain place? Yes, new taxes are bad, but the conversation is about weapons. You know, my wife gave me a watch - the bracelet is too short ... is that not the topic? Be patient, you are talking bullshit and I will.
            1. bandabas
              bandabas 22 September 2020 16: 19
              -2
              So your wife was mistaken, counting on someone else. Most likely because of your "poop".
              1. Sergey Averchenkov
                Sergey Averchenkov 22 September 2020 16: 25
                +5
                My wife no longer counts - the age is not the same. Her main concern is her grandchildren and dacha. And stop shitting. Let's say the topic of the submarine fleet - will you climb again with your taxes? What have you offended? Too much ripped off? Well, feel it in yourself - it's not interesting to me.
                1. bandabas
                  bandabas 22 September 2020 18: 58
                  -6
                  You shit. Congratulations to the supporter of the Lilliputians.
          3. ZEMCH
            ZEMCH 22 September 2020 23: 51
            +1
            Quote: bandabas
            We have our own concept - constant increase and introduction of new taxes for citizens

            What taxes have increased in Russia? What new taxes have been introduced?
            Everyone is ready to whine, but try to help the country with deeds!
            I drove through many factories that previously produced military-industrial complex products, of which less than 1% were modernized, they say, give us a government order and we will do everything, but ready to fulfill it with sufficient quality and on time 0%, ready to invest for development - the minimum amount, except for the sale equipment such as scrap metal and rental of premises, no development plans! If you say that Putin is to blame, then I will laugh, everything was corporatized in the 90s.
            1. bandabas
              bandabas 25 September 2020 19: 56
              0
              And where is the lilyuput, the "talking head" having its own percentage.
        3. Volder
          Volder 22 September 2020 10: 43
          +3
          Quote: spectr
          If they succeed, then Russia will merge this race, like the previous one, either by an economic collapse or by a gradual lag in all directions.
          If they succeed, then Russia will come up with something else, because progress does not stand still. Russia did not lose the previous race, because at that time the Russian Federation did not exist. Where does the economic collapse come from if Russia has successfully survived the sanctions, the coronary crisis, not to mention the economic peak of the 1990s? There are no prerequisites now. They do not plan to increase the military budget. Your pessimism is not supported by anything.
        4. Firelake
          Firelake 22 September 2020 18: 08
          0
          We already have an economic collapse and a lag in electronics.
      2. Alexander I
        Alexander I 22 September 2020 10: 23
        -5
        Well, they ruined us by scaring the SDI system, which in fact turned out to be zilch.
      3. kris_67
        kris_67 23 September 2020 17: 01
        0
        "let's see who has more money" - and then there is only one option, what to watch or do you doubt?
      4. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 30 September 2020 01: 33
        0
        Quote: Civil
        Arms Race - 2, let's see who has more money.

        The MiG-71 responded to the SR-31 program of the USSR. The USA did not have enough money to fly the SR-71, the MiG-31 is still in service, because its operation is much cheaper (maybe more than an order of magnitude). We have different budgets, as well as approaches to solving problems
    3. KCA
      KCA 22 September 2020 12: 40
      +6
      UR100NUTTH, as it were, 30 pieces from Ukraine received dry ones, and how do you know how many of them were put on the database and how many are equipped with the Avangard BB? Are you the commander of the Strategic Missile Forces? Or a super spy? Yes, it got 30 dry, and only 130 after the collapse of the USSR
  2. rocket757
    rocket757 22 September 2020 05: 04
    +5
    The United States intends to maintain its superiority in the field of armed forces and strategic weapons

    Advantage??? Those. option, to bang your opponent not once, but three times at once, is this an advantage? Yes, having received a fatal wound in response !!!
    This is already a perversion of the brain, final!
    1. YOUR
      YOUR 22 September 2020 05: 37
      +8
      Why is this arms race needed? Someone's pride flatters.
      Only Chernobyl, if not for Academician V. Legasov, then life on the territory of Ukraine, Belarus froze, Poland, Germany, France .. in short, Europe would have faced enormous difficulties. This is when he prevented another explosion. So just one nuclear power plant. Compare with dreams of using all types of nuclear weapons.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 22 September 2020 07: 01
        +6
        Quote: YOUR
        Why is an arms race needed

        First of all, it's a good profitable business!
        Secondly, this is the same Colt at the temple of the intractable apparatus.
        There are also third, fourth ...
        1. Volder
          Volder 22 September 2020 10: 51
          +3
          Quote: YOUR
          Why is an arms race needed
          Quote: rocket757
          First of all, it's a good profitable business!
          Taking into account the growing US military budget and the decreasing military budget of the Russian Federation, it becomes clear in which country the business is more profitable. More profits in the arms race. Accordingly, the United States is participating in the arms race, while Russia is not.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 22 September 2020 10: 59
            +2
            Quote: Volder
            Accordingly, the United States is participating in the arms race, while Russia is not.

            And what for should we drive the arms race right now, when we have big problems in the INDUSTRY. Make tanks and everything else more and more?
            It is much more useful to spend resources on preparation for .... in short, if it is spent on preparation, it will be much more rational.
            1. Volder
              Volder 22 September 2020 11: 17
              +3
              Quote: rocket757
              we have big problems in the INDUSTRY.
              Yes, there are problems in the production of conventional weapons (i.e., non-nuclear).
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 22 September 2020 12: 08
                0
                It is impossible to stay in the lead, but at least at a high level, if only one industry develops. SKINS ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE!
                How it will actually develop, where the resources will be spent, we DO NOT KNOW.
                It is booming to hope that the management will approach responsibly to solving specific problems, and not so, in general, for everything and as a result no matter what.
                1. sniperino
                  sniperino 23 September 2020 00: 39
                  -2
                  Quote: rocket757
                  SKINS ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE!
                  Off-site hay mowing (skewing) is your trade? If Stalin had reasoned like that before the war, can you imagine? It's easier for me to imagine what would happen to you for such agitation.
                  1. rocket757
                    rocket757 23 September 2020 06: 43
                    0
                    Quote: sniperino
                    Off-site hay mowing (skewing) is your trade?

                    Did they crawl out of the farm? Do you see any problems other than "neighbor's hay"?
                    1. sniperino
                      sniperino 23 September 2020 08: 40
                      -2
                      Quote: rocket757
                      Did they crawl out of the farm?
                      And you, apparently, in the kibbutz were taught to answer questions with questions.
                      Quote: rocket757
                      Do you see any problems other than "neighbor's hay"?
                      You, by and large, have one problem - the leadership of Russia, and you the whole codla with the whole "free and progressive world" squeal in chorus on any topic, not only about Russia's strategic weapons, about impoverishment, about distortions, about inevitable collapse, but you do not know what to do with this problem. And that makes me happy.
                      1. rocket757
                        rocket757 23 September 2020 09: 27
                        +1
                        Quote: sniperino
                        By and large, you have one problem - the leadership of Russia

                        Ha, and here you are lying, or you have not read what I write, at all.
                        I suggest you remember and ....
                        A person is judged by their actions. It doesn't matter if he is a big boss or ... anyone.
                        Only facts, no others are accepted.
            2. YOUR
              YOUR 23 September 2020 06: 11
              0
              Excuse me, it's not a fig for us to drive ... and how to drive us ... and further in the text.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 23 September 2020 06: 48
                +1
                Quote: YOUR
                not a fig for us to drive .... but what do we drive ... and further in the text.

                And the second sentence and further in the text to read NOT, in any way?
                What is the problem then?
                1. YOUR
                  YOUR 24 September 2020 02: 20
                  0
                  Yes, there is no problem.
                2. YOUR
                  YOUR 24 September 2020 04: 38
                  0
                  Except for problems with the economy.
          2. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 22 September 2020 17: 54
            +1
            Quote: Volder
            in which country the business is more profitable

            One company, Rateon, has more profit than Gazprom
          3. YOUR
            YOUR 23 September 2020 06: 10
            -1
            Russia is developing new types of weapons, which it talks about to the whole world. The Americans answer. And so, just in case, we have no state-owned enterprises. The same Kalashnikov was redeemed long ago, Sukhoi, redeemed, Kamov and there are no Kamovs there is a holding company "Russian Helicopters" which is managed by the unsinkable Sedyukov.
            So do not hang the noodles, it slips for a long time.
      2. KCA
        KCA 22 September 2020 13: 25
        +4
        There is a big difference between a thermonuclear explosion and a release from a reactor, after a thermonuclear explosion, soldiers can be sent in half an hour, and the reactor's emissions live for tens of thousands of years, almost all plutonium burns out during a thermonuclear fusion, the contamination will be, but minimal, mainly from induced radiation
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 22 September 2020 14: 22
          +2
          Here on parallel branches this was discussed. If you bang a couple of hundred kilotons near the reactors, then the infection will be tens of times greater than Chernobyl. One warhead can make half of Europe uninhabitable.
          1. KCA
            KCA 22 September 2020 14: 56
            0
            Not every reactor can be blown up with hundreds of kilotons, for example, we have a reactor that is no longer working, the walls of a building are 3 meters thick of cast concrete, if there is an air explosion, nichrome will not happen to the reactor
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 22 September 2020 18: 10
              +2
              And there are those that you can. And this is infa open in principle. Russia, dying under attack, may well take more than half the world with it. And you will not envy the rest. The enemy realizes this. If there is a mahach then to the end
              1. KCA
                KCA 22 September 2020 19: 11
                +1
                Back in the days of the USSR, I read in the journal Science and Life about the tests of the reactor building by a Boeing 707 hit, with a photo, did not shmogli
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 22 September 2020 19: 53
                  +2
                  If 200 kilotons arrive at the NPP, the impact will be complex. And from the blast wave. And a seismic shock. And fires. And disconnection, and a sharp one, of the load. There will be damage. And at the same time, there will be no forces and means to eliminate the consequences. There will be no resources. Even if the protective domes are resistant, there may be problems.
                  1. KCA
                    KCA 22 September 2020 22: 42
                    -1
                    External transformers will be damaged, but there is no reactor hall, there will be no radionuclide leakage
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 22 September 2020 22: 50
                      0
                      Do you think 3 meters of concrete will withstand a 200 kiloton explosion? At what distance?
                      1. KCA
                        KCA 23 September 2020 03: 39
                        -1
                        Obviously at an altitude of 500-600 meters, and not the fact that right above the reactor hall, no one canceled the KVO
                      2. YOUR
                        YOUR 23 September 2020 06: 22
                        0
                        How to deal with high-precision weapons equipped with concrete-piercing warheads that break through up to 10 meters of soil or 6-8 meters of concrete with armor.
                        External transformers will be damaged, but there is no reactor hall, there will be no radionuclide leakage

                        They thought about the same in Chernobyl. Here is the question, are you sure that the protection will work normally everywhere, and the reactor will not go into the fray.
                      3. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 23 September 2020 08: 09
                        0
                        Why not after burying?
                      4. KCA
                        KCA 23 September 2020 12: 12
                        -1
                        I don't think that the BB of a strategic missile with hypersonic speed can go deep and not collapse, this is not GBU-28, where the mass of cast iron is 10 times more than a warhead, 2 tons
                      5. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 23 September 2020 14: 26
                        0
                        I'll tell you a secret. A nuclear warhead is most of all similar in structure to cast iron. Recessed warheads are available. They hit the mines like that.
                      6. KCA
                        KCA 23 September 2020 15: 17
                        -1
                        Models of BB rockets are shown constantly, maybe not entirely true, but clearly not weighing 2300kg for penetration, "Topol" throws 1200kg, this is BB and a bus, and false targets, what remains on the BB itself? The CH charge is not hexogen with aluminum powder, the detonation system is a little more complicated there, if the CH BB lands on the ground and goes deep at a speed of 7 MAX, will it work? Or will it fall apart? It is possible to create a BB, say, from tungsten carbide, but in comparison with the 1420th TY charges in Russia this is laughter, well, 1-2-3 mines will be destroyed, but in response what?
                      7. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 23 September 2020 15: 37
                        0
                        A lot of weight is not needed. Small warheads go deep too. They will hit the mines and bunkers like that.
                      8. KCA
                        KCA 23 September 2020 15: 44
                        -1
                        Above the mines there are shrapnel installations, just in case of an attack on the mine, the missiles hang on shock absorbers, I don’t know how much pressure the cover can withstand, the mines are not dug one at a time, but for a whole regiment of the Strategic Missile Forces, and, again, no one has KVOs for ballistic missiles did not cancel where and how it will go deep, the question
                      9. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 23 September 2020 18: 09
                        0
                        Tobish 200 kilotons what is it you don’t understand?
      3. nobody75
        nobody75 27 November 2020 18: 10
        -1
        External transformers will suffer

        Increasing or decreasing - those that take energy from the power system?
        How will the power supply of the reactor control automation be carried out? If the AZ falls, the reactor still needs to be cooled. Remember Fukushima ...
        Sincerely
  • Serg4545
    Serg4545 23 September 2020 13: 58
    0
    Quote: KCA
    Not every reactor can be blown up with hundreds of kilotons, for example, we have a reactor that is no longer working, the walls of a building are 3 meters thick of cast concrete, if there is an air explosion, nichrome will not happen to the reactor

    And among those who work, is there anything similar?
    There is no hike.
    And yes. KVO modern Russian warheads 200-300 meters. When a standard 550 kiloton warhead explodes, a plasma ball with a diameter of 500 meters is formed.
    3 meters of concrete for a nuclear explosion is nothing if the air explosion is at least 300 meters from the shelter.
    1. KCA
      KCA 23 September 2020 14: 23
      -1
      The cover of the mine of a strategic missile is much less than 3 meters thick, but it is designed for an air thermonuclear explosion, and moreover, in the event of failure of the mechanisms, it is fired by squibs by 20 meters, so that a cast reinforced concrete structure can only be destroyed by a direct hit, or by placing point charges in places of maximum tension, but that's a different song
      1. Serg4545
        Serg4545 24 September 2020 04: 46
        0
        Quote: KCA
        The cover of the mine of a strategic missile is much less than 3 meters thick, but it is designed for an air thermonuclear explosion, and moreover, in the event of a failure of the mechanisms, it is fired off by squibs by 20 meters, so that a cast reinforced concrete structure can only be destroyed by direct hit

        Google it - explosive deuterium energy.
        In this project it is supposed to be used as protection against only 10 kt explosion, a wall of 25 meters! reinforced concrete. Plus, the side that will face the explosion is additionally laid out 40 cm! steel plates. The explosion should take place 200 meters from the wall. The charge at the moment of detonation must be surrounded by hundreds of tons of liquid sodium. Liquid sodium at times softens the effects of an explosion on a wall. If there is no liquid sodium, the very first explosion will cause irreversible changes to the wall. And the exploitation of the wall will become impossible. Although it will not be completely destroyed.
        Now imagine a 55 times charge! more powerful. And instead of 25 meters of concrete + 40 cm of steel + the damping effect of hundreds of tons of liquid sodium - only 3 meters of concrete. And you will understand that in these conditions, from 3 meters of concrete, there will be no more benefit than from a sheet of paper.
        Oh yes. The cover for mine rockets is made of steel. And 60 cm of alloy steel surpasses 3 meters of concrete in strength.
  • YOUR
    YOUR 23 September 2020 06: 16
    0
    What do you think, if such a moment comes, they will strike at nuclear power plants or not, or at nuclear burial grounds, the list of such objects is enormous.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 22 September 2020 06: 10
    13
    They are looking for an opportunity to bang and NOT get an answer.
    1. Ragnar Lodbrok
      Ragnar Lodbrok 22 September 2020 06: 25
      13
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      They are looking for an opportunity to bang and NOT get an answer.

      "Hopes are doubtful shelter."
      The elders are given joy ”
      But still gradually melting.
      And finally, on the slope of days
      Suddenly understands man
      The vanity of hopes, the vanity of ideas ... "There are no others, but those are far away" "
      They perfectly understand the inevitability of a retaliatory strike, therefore there is no World War III yet.
      1. sniperino
        sniperino 23 September 2020 01: 11
        -1
        Quote: Ragnar Lothbrok
        They perfectly understand the inevitability of a retaliatory strike, therefore there is no World War III yet.
        Another would be to localize them in time so that the response does not fly by.
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 22 September 2020 09: 10
      0
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      They are looking for an opportunity to bang and NOT get an answer.

      In fact, they are simply afraid. It has long been clear that even 1-2 missiles will bring unacceptable damage, and if instead of Russia there is a radioactive desert, then Europe and the United States will also be crappy. Therefore, it is better to choke the enemy with sanctions and a fifth column. Well, in local conflicts Yao most likely they will not use it. didn’t use it in Syria and in the Yom Kippur War. in fact, the United States is afraid of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. because a test tube with plague or anthrax can be carried anywhere
      1. Alexander I
        Alexander I 22 September 2020 10: 28
        +4
        Now wars are carried out by completely different methods and so far they are winning. Ukraine, now Belarus and no missiles and tanks, and Russia is being pressed by economic and internal conflicts
        1. KCA
          KCA 22 September 2020 15: 15
          -1
          What internal conflicts are there in Russia? I have lived here for a long time, not everyone lives up to my age, I have not encountered conflicts
        2. 2 Level Advisor
          2 Level Advisor 22 September 2020 16: 05
          0
          I agree that at present they have no need to strike at us with nuclear weapons ... What is at least one reason? Prevent the spread of communism across the Earth? Get the resources that we already sell? Capture territories? what for? Now there is really a world economic war, and we are losing in it so far - with a devastating score ... so what is the need for them to move into the plane of a classical war, and even more so a nuclear one ..
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 22 September 2020 05: 35
    +6
    Intercontinental missiles were invented as a means of delivering nuclear weapons. It's strange to read:
    Several third countries considers such weapons a threat to their securityrequiring an appropriate response.

    And who for the first time and in the existing exclusivity used nuclear weapons against other countries and peoples? And then - they were concerned ... This is the Russian answer to the recommendations: "How to quickly die without waiting for the results of the use of nuclear weapons against others."
    Sit there, across the ocean and think ...
  • Cowbra
    Cowbra 22 September 2020 05: 36
    +7
    First, the whole point of creating the Vanguards and Poseidons is just an asymmetric answer. The vanguard ONCE made the entire US missile defense system a fiction, for which they ditched a lot of money, incl. in Europe, Poseidon made no sense of all superiority at sea. Russia, without getting involved in an arms race, where we will lose, has put the United States in cancer. who threw a lot of money down the drain and now pretend that they have plasticine in their pants.
    Tales about the fact that "we will answer ... to the vanguard ... sea missiles ..." Even the sect of Saint Mask should be rzhach - the Russian Federation is simply unable to wage an offensive war against the United States. so the Vanguard is not a weapon of invasion, but of defense. So the United States does not have an answer to the Vanguard, the answer could be some kind of anti-avant-garde missile defense systems, which would theoretically enable the United States to deliver an unanswered strike against the Russian Federation. But the Vanguard at once cancels out the entire strategy of US domination. At any moment, any target in the United States of the Russian Federation is able to hit, and there is nothing to answer
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 22 September 2020 07: 24
      -2
      The answer may be some kind of space systems firing past the early warning system
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 22 September 2020 07: 42
        +3
        ... on a rocket flying with hypersound in the atmosphere and maneuvering?))) Exactly for the same reason, it is inaccessible from the ground, for which it is from space laughing
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 22 September 2020 07: 56
          +3
          In the places of basing and that would not be seen by the early warning radars. If the Russian Federation releases everything, even old missiles, there will be a bad ending anyway. The point is to disarm the main amount and prevent it from flying.
          1. Cowbra
            Cowbra 22 September 2020 08: 14
            +3
            Well, they have a drone flying in orbit now. But this will be a violation of international conventions on the demilitarization of outer space - one, and two - not much of the fact that they will be able to block or even find all the bases of the Vanguards. However, even this is unimportant - it does not negate the fact that the entire missile defense system, together with the deployment in Europe, became money at once. thrown into nowhere winked
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 22 September 2020 08: 16
              0
              Yes, spending on missile defense is in the trash (although technology will help against third countries) .... and a new missile defense system is becoming more difficult and more expensive than a complex one.
            2. Passing
              Passing 22 September 2020 11: 42
              0
              Quote: Cowbra
              this would be a violation of international conventions on the demilitarization of outer space

              This treaty prohibits only nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in outer space. Nothing prevents the use of anti-bunker bombs specially created for the shuttle that has been on duty in orbit for years for a disarming strike on our silos, and on mobile ones too. On the prototype x-37 and is working out the strike space fighter, which will provide their concept of "Rapid Global Strike" within an hour on any point on the earth.
              Quote: Cowbra
              Vanguard ONCE made the entire US missile defense system a fiction

              And the further development of the X-37 will make the entire ground component of Russia's strategic nuclear forces fictitious, together with the Vanguard and any other, arbitrarily revolutionary developments.
              Actually, this is why the Americans are not worried about missile defense, they have already calculated and adopted the most economical and effective version of their absolute superiority, and this is not a missile defense, this is a "Rapid Global Strike". BSU. Forget about missile defense, it is only to divert our and Chinese resources and attention from the true threat.
              1. Cowbra
                Cowbra 22 September 2020 12: 06
                +3
                Quote: Passing by
                And the further development of the X-37 will make the entire ground component of Russia's strategic nuclear forces fictitious, together with the Vanguard and any other, arbitrarily revolutionary developments.

                I doubt it) This is exactly prohibitively expensive, about like sticking ABM missiles at the border.
                Again. the strategy is not to deliver a disarming blow, but to deliver a NON-RESPONSE blow. Ch-37 was originally considered as an ELEMENT of the BSU, aimed at command. And there can be 1-2 such drones, well, three - which is clearly not enough for all the squadrons. And the finished missile defense was supposed to cope with the ICBM, now it will not cope
                1. Passing
                  Passing 22 September 2020 12: 22
                  -1
                  It's prohibitively expensive about the Space Shuttle. For a pioneer, and in general 100 tons into orbit cannot be cheap. But ten to twenty tons, which have been hanging in orbit for years, is quite acceptable money, especially in light of the successes in dramatically reducing the cost of launches by the notorious Musk. So they can quite count on dozens of devices.
                  Quote: Cowbra
                  Ch-37 was originally considered as an ELEMENT of the BSU, aimed at command.

                  Given its low carrying capacity, only for single purposes, such as a command post, it can be adapted. But do not forget that the X-37 is a test of the pen, a test of practical feasibility. A real breakthrough unmanned striker will be built behind it, with stealth, mega sensors and large ammunition.
                  1. Cowbra
                    Cowbra 22 September 2020 12: 48
                    +3
                    Quote: Passing by
                    especially in light of the successes in dramatically reducing the cost of launches by the notorious Musk

                    Firstly, not by Musk, but by NASA and the Pentagon, in fact, this is not even hiding. Why is the rocket called that? Because she is the carrier for the fucking Falcon DAPRA Project program, which, by the way, includes the X-37, namely BSU.
                    Quote: Passing by
                    with stealth

                    Here they grabbed this stealth, like a shag))) What the fuck is stealth in space? !!! am
                    * The vacuum has the highest possible transparency.
                    * The background is either 4K (relict) or predictable (stars).
                    * A ship inevitably emits heat generated inside it and reflects or re-emits sunlight. Especially when he maneuvers.
                    * The sensitivity of modern telescopes is enough to take a picture of Voyager beyond Pluto's orbit.
                    And further -
                    It's prohibitively expensive about the Space Shuttle. For a pioneer, and in general 100 tons into orbit cannot be cheap.
                    And why is nobody building a "second mover"? For nichrome is not cheap! And about the carrying capacity - it is the Falcon designed for the needs of the Pentagon that flies with a 10% load commercially - 2,5 tons versus 22 carrying capacity - commerce does not need as much as the warriors. And yet, it is expensive not to launch, expensive - the drone itself, control, guidance, weapons, maintenance. And just prohibitively expensive, because there will not be dozens of them, this is not even a "golden bomber" Bi-2
                    1. Passing
                      Passing 22 September 2020 15: 10
                      +3
                      Quote: Cowbra
                      First, not by Musk, but by NASA and the Pentagon

                      You are encroaching on holy things. The same as saying that not Korolev, but the Politburo and the Ministry of Defense (or whatever it was called then). Formally correct, but in fact the work is done by specific people who work for Musk, not for the Pentagon. Moreover, well-motivated by Musk, people work for an idea (in American transcription - for a portfolio, for a career), and not for money.
                      Quote: Cowbra
                      Why is the rocket called that?

                      Because Eagle was left in reserve, for an even cooler rocket.)))
                      And for a hypersonic warhead for BGU, civilian missiles are not an option, only mine, so Musk is all in white here.)))
                      And the X-37 was created long before Falcon DAPRA Projec, so who is where it is is still a question.
                      Quote: Cowbra
                      What the fuck is stealth in space ?!

                      Yes, the best possible. It is in space. Because:
                      1) Between the observer and the vacuum, there is guaranteed to be a thick-thick layer of the atmosphere, which is full of all sorts of opaque objects, such as clouds, including high-altitude pyerous ones, which ordinary aircraft do not hide, and all this is optically unstable, "flickers" due to fluctuations of the atmosphere.
                      2) On the background of the galaxy in 4K on violet, because it is negligible in comparison with the rest.
                      And the thermal background will mainly be set by the hot atmosphere of the Earth, which has a complex sawtooth temperature gradient from altitude, and at an altitude the temperature is higher than at the ground and reaches 50 degrees Celsius per 150 km. Plus the brightest spots from clouds, including high-altitude ones, plus fluctuations of radiation from an icy suspension outside the clouds, plus dust, plus from the "solar wind" on magnetic lines, plus 300000 pieces of space debris continuously moving, plus billions of stars continuously "twinkling" in the atmosphere and creating a background noise for recognition systems of insurmountable complexity.
                      Against this background, any thermal radiation of the device from the operating electronics will be lost. Let me remind you that modern satellites have an unheated filling, i.e. heat up exactly as much as consumed energy. How much does a running computer consume, a dozen or so watts? At night, it is simply unrealistic to find a non-stealth device in orbit by its own thermal radiation (unless it is a telecommunications satellite with kilowatt radio transmitters). When the Sun heats up the device, of course, a problem arises, but for this stealth is needed, for example, we reflect the solar radiation with a mirror plane, or on the night side we open a cold "umbrella" towards the Earth, which closes the device heated by the Sun. And on the daytime side, for example, we accumulate heat inside the device, and on the nighttime side we release it under the cover of an "umbrella". There are enough options for invisibility in the IR range.
                      Quote: Cowbra
                      The sensitivity of modern telescopes is enough to take a picture of Voyager beyond Pluto's orbit.

                      IMHO, you confuse, everything was exactly the opposite, not from Voyager's Earth, but from Voyager's Earth. Such a small nuance. However, it makes no difference. I was talking about stealth, black paint will perfectly solve the problem in the visible range. I have already told about IK above.
                      Quote: Cowbra
                      And why is nobody building a "second mover"?

                      And what is the X-37?
                      Quote: Cowbra
                      And just prohibitively expensive, because there will not be dozens of them,

                      It is prohibitively expensive in our understanding, but for a mad dog a hundred miles is not a hook. The Americans are not much bothered by the 3 billion Zumvolt, plus the life cycle cost of 4 billion 7 billion for a ship that is not really needed in practice, solving the purely symbolic task of keeping the flag of the world leader in the ocean.
                      And you say that the means of absolute domination in the form of fifty orbital strikers does not cost any money? Yes, it's funny, money, it's just cut paper, and world domination is a means to sell that very cut paper (I exaggerate, the sale of candy wrappers is deeply secondary here), and to ensure the highest standard of living now (not only in the material sense), plus provide yourself with a historical perspective ... The choice is obvious.
                      1. Cowbra
                        Cowbra 22 September 2020 15: 39
                        -2
                        Fir-trees, on Earth, all detection has long been built on satellites, do you think that it is logical to track targets in space from Earth ?! And what for? Scratch your right ear with your left hand ...
                        About expensive. So that's it, the United States ran into a threshold - it is ALREADY too expensive to maintain even the ILC - and it was cut. Zamvolty have already been in the past together with the F-35, judging by the fact that the F-15 was resumed to rivet and in general Super Tucano went. The money turned out to be not endless, even if it is cut paper, but there is not enough paper either. If LCS has already cut half of it, I do not care about image losses - because there is no money for them. So I stand by my opinion
                      2. Passing
                        Passing 22 September 2020 17: 33
                        0
                        Suppose that stealth will not work well for an observer from a higher orbit, such as less interference, it is more difficult to cover the vehicle from different angles. It seems like tracking from space looks good in theory, but so that the underlying surface of the earth does not interfere with the observation, so that the background remains stable, and does not "fly" at a speed of several kilometers per second, which is important for the radical simplification of automated recognition against the background of the Earth, you will have to observe from geostationary orbit, from 36000 km. And then a small but unpleasant nuance appears, well, as usual it happens in reality. And it is called the resolution. Let's consider specifically for optics. For 10 cm optics, the resolution will be around 175 meters. For meter optics, conditionally 17,5 meters. This is physics. Those. absolutely any body in low orbit will look like a point. And go and figure out what exactly appeared there in orbit, if the students are indulging, they launched a couple of dozen microsatellites, or the combat system is being deployed.
                2. KCA
                  KCA 22 September 2020 13: 35
                  +1
                  Satellites tend to move in orbit around the Earth, one flight of an hour and a half, and it is unrealistic to shoot missiles from a geostationary orbit, the range of 38 km is not small, satellites fly in spaced orbits so as not to collide, one missile from the Kh-000 will cause a retaliatory strike, by all means and by means, this is a satellite in the cinema, always at the right time in the right place
                  1. Passing
                    Passing 22 September 2020 15: 18
                    0
                    What kind of retaliation? We are talking about a preventive, disarming strike. No single rocket. At a strictly scheduled time, from low orbit, there will be a massive launch of relatively cheap "bombs" at mines and other objects. Then there will be nothing to answer.
                    1. Cowbra
                      Cowbra 22 September 2020 15: 42
                      0
                      Quote: Passing by
                      there will be a massive launch of relatively cheap "bombs" at mines and other objects.

                      S-s-s ... Read at least Clark. "You can't drop anything from orbit" !!! Not bombs. and rockets, and with a powerful engine to extinguish the space speed in orbit, and with a complex and expensive system - stabilization and guidance
                    2. Passing
                      Passing 22 September 2020 16: 30
                      -3
                      Imagine, I can do that too, s-s-s ... you seem to have mastered Clark with difficulty, because it's too difficult, and on the wave of your intellectual super-effort you think that the men don't even know ...
                      Imagine, I have an education about missiles and airplanes, so I am well informed, but I am not writing a verbatim dissertation, but relatively quick comments on a topic where you involuntarily write easier to save time and printed signs.
                    3. Cowbra
                      Cowbra 22 September 2020 16: 38
                      0
                      It is clear, after you were pointed out to your incompetence, you did not find anything smarter than writing nonsense. And further. Clarke was very well versed in space mechanics, and the geostationary orbit is not accidentally called Clark's orbit.
                    4. Passing
                      Passing 22 September 2020 18: 10
                      -1
                      Quote: Cowbra
                      after being pointed out to you about your incompetence, you did not find anything smarter than writing nonsense.

                      It's just amazing, they thought it up themselves, they laughed themselves. Bravo, you are on the right path of the Internet troll!
                      Now to the facts. My direct quote:
                      there will be a massive launch of relatively cheap "bombs" at mines and other objects.

                      First, notice the word launch. Do not shoot, do not throw. You can only launch something that has a mover.
                      Secondly, a bomb means an ammunition that is free falling along a ballistic trajectory. Notice the quotation marks in the word "bomb". Why do you think I put these words in quotation marks, if I meant that the bomb would fall freely? Do you know there are rocket-powered gliding bombs?
                      I'll give you a free tip to help you not look ... um ... weird in the eyes of an opponent. Other people may have a different context than yours. For you who studied the mechanics of space flight according to Clark, mentioning the word bomb in the context of space is one layer of knowledge, but for someone who studied space professionally, it is completely different. And before you cheerfully rush to expose someone's ignorance, carefully read the opponent's message for nuances that are incomprehensible to you, perhaps it is there that something that is not obvious to you at first glance is hidden.
                    5. Cowbra
                      Cowbra 22 September 2020 18: 34
                      0
                      Already by the fact that you piled above about a 10-ton shuttle with a load - all 10 tons, and below - about 10 bombs per shuttle - it is clear that you did not mean rockets, and now you are trying to get out of that puddle in a frying pan. which they imprisoned themselves. And once again, for "according to Clarke" - the geostationary orbit was so called by people who understand YOU clearly better.
                      In parting, I will say that your attempts to OIL from the outside look just pathetic.
                    6. Passing
                      Passing 22 September 2020 19: 14
                      -1
                      Quote: Cowbra
                      it is clear that you did not mean rockets, and now you are trying to get out of that puddle with a frying pan

                      Why should I spin in a frying pan, my position as it was and remains unchanged. "Bombs", not rockets, because in the context of my baggage of knowledge, rockets are pointlessly redundant here. The function of the rocket, to deliver the "bomb" (warhead) to the launch point, is taken by the shuttle itself.
                      Quote: Cowbra
                      In parting, I will say that your attempts to OIL from the outside look just pathetic.

                      Mmm .. it seemed like I was leading the usual discussion, brought my arguments to yours, there was a typical such dispute, and suddenly you just started to drown in the style of yourself ... Well, if you persistently translate the discus to personalities ... I already said that you look strange? A person who pokes his finger at me invented flaws himself messes up in a big way, at least in four points:
                      1) About the Mask and the Pentagon. NASA, let it be with a stretch.
                      2) about the Falcon DAPRA Project, which was supposedly planned to be based on the Musk rocket, is generally beyond the bounds. The meaning of the venture is to defeat any target within an hour from the receipt of the command. What a nafig start from the launch pad, preparation for the start there lasts days and weeks! Only a mine-based, or sea-based BR, there can be no other options.
                      3) About the Falcon DAPRA Project, which supposedly meant the creation of the X-37, although the latter was already tested when the Falcon DAPRA Project was just being formed.
                      4) About the geostationary orbit named after the outstanding scientist Clark. Clarke was a writer though. He was not a scientist, he did not have scientific papers, and where did they come from, he did not even have a higher education. And the scientist who suggested using the geostationary orbit was Tsiolkovsky. And Clark is honored for popularizing space, deservedly so. But not for his scientific contributions.
                      These are only obvious, 100% facts. I have already spoken about your other theses, they are at least controversial, i.e. debated. But, it is pointless to discuss with a person who is not capable of a civilized discussion.
      2. garri-lin
        garri-lin 22 September 2020 14: 30
        0
        Their patrol zones are rather limited. In the event of an aggravation of the situation to such a critical situation, it is quite possible to begin to "pollute" the space with those very pair of buckets with nuts. The militarization of outer space will trigger a response in any case. Because this is really a pistol at the temple and will fight with this ultimatum.
        1. Passing
          Passing 22 September 2020 15: 26
          -1
          Are you serious? Now a critical situation has come, and you propose to launch a preemptive strike and to take all satellites out of orbit? And theirs and others? Is this your plan for victory? Do you understand that after that, all those who have nuclear weapons will immediately use them, without options? Those. Based on your strategy, virtually any crisis will 100% end in a world massacre, and Russia will be the culprit in unleashing it. You have a funny plan, Doctor Evil is spinning in his coffin with envy.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 22 September 2020 18: 12
            +1
            If you have a 24/7 warhead hanging over you with which you cannot do anything, then the war has already begun and, moreover, is lost. There is nothing to do here.
  • CBR600
    CBR600 22 September 2020 14: 37
    +3
    And the further development of the Kh-37 will make the entire ground component of the Russian strategic nuclear forces a fiction

    Launching this fool will remain a study. 1 ton of payload. How many tons do you need to destroy the strategic nuclear forces of Russia? Are you seriously? By the way, this is our Bor project, which the states licked up. And, excuse me, are you sure that Russia does not have such a program? Bohr flew (according to words, it is true) in the 60s, in parallel with Gagarin. And this is not just an apparatus, it is a system complex, by the way.
    1. Passing
      Passing 22 September 2020 15: 35
      0
      Quote: CBR600
      How many tons do you need to destroy the strategic nuclear forces of Russia? Are you seriously?

      We have 100 mine rockets and 200 mobile ones. A total of some pitiful 300 orbital bombs for the land component. Let's say 10 bombs per shuttle. In total, 30 shuttles are needed. Ridiculously small for a task of this level.
      Quote: CBR600
      Are you sure that Russia does not have such a program?

      I'm sure I'm sure. With space programs, everything is very sad for us, and it would be fine if there was a vital necessity, as with ballistic missiles and or the Vanguard, since we actually do not need a space striker, we do not plan a preemptive strike, we have a defense strategy.
      1. KCA
        KCA 22 September 2020 16: 09
        -1
        What's sad about military space? I don’t remember a single unsuccessful launch, but few know what is being launched into orbit.
        1. Passing
          Passing 22 September 2020 16: 57
          +1
          Precisely because few know, and do not remember. But something is slipping, for example there was at one time a massive failure of the Glonass satellites. As a result, full coverage of the Earth came several years later than planned. Liana could not be finished. Although they have been sawing since the 90s. So it flies without a radar component, and the system is vital for the fleet, without it, the fight against AUG looks difficult to implement, although I'm not a pro here, maybe there are tricky options with an air control center for anti-ship missiles. And the cherry on the cake is our images from military optical reconnaissance satellites. They were presented to the public during the events in Ukraine. The quality is not very good, to put it mildly, the resolution is optimistic about a meter, although in the West it has already reached 30 cm (EMNIP), and in the civil sector.
    2. KCA
      KCA 22 September 2020 15: 39
      0
      The USSR successfully tested the satellite-1 fighter, now the mattresses are howling about the research satellites, how many are launched, how many can be launched, 100 grams of TNT is enough to damage the X-37, or its analog, any crap in orbit is under observation , and we, and the mattresses, if it is known that the X-37 is a carrier of TNW, "researchers" will immediately hang on it
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 22 September 2020 06: 13
    +5
    On the pages of newspapers and the Internet, you can talk as much as you like about the advantages and disadvantages of this or that weapon, as well as its owners. But experience says that this is all nonsense, how it will actually be nobody can say.
    For example, the USSR in June 41 had more than 20 thousand tanks, the Germans attacked the pass with about 4 thousand tanks, and not of the best quality. In terms of airplanes, roughly speaking, roughly equal positions, in terms of human resources, about the same story. And according to the results of the first three months of battles, it was possible to raise paws at all, but it was not of course, as a result, Germany fell and its flags were thrown to the foot of the Mausoleum.
    So this Peter, whose he is there lol he can joke about as much as he wants, but the West must understand that there will be no Russia, there will be none of them, from the word at all.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 22 September 2020 07: 23
      +7
      Now there is no superiority either in people, or in the amount of weapons, or in industry, or in the depths of the territory .... But there is nuclear weapons.
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 22 September 2020 13: 13
        -2
        The General Staff probably shared information with you, well, how do you know what anyone has? I’m guessing, although I could be wrong, if something is shown to the general public, then there is something in the bastard.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 22 September 2020 13: 59
          +2
          Well, there is the size of the army and the population ..... and there is the enemy .... They have a NATO standard, we have our standard.
          1. Ros 56
            Ros 56 22 September 2020 14: 06
            -2
            When you learn to think, and not theorize templates. In October-November 1941, you could raise your paws and surrender, everything was for the Germans, they looked at Moscow through binoculars, and what happened in the end?
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 22 September 2020 17: 02
              +1
              Then there was an army larger than that of the Germans .... there were rear areas .... established production in Siberia.
              1. Nastia makarova
                Nastia makarova 23 September 2020 18: 02
                -5
                all Europe worked for the Germans
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 22 September 2020 09: 23
      0
      Quote: Ros 56
      On the pages of newspapers and the Internet, you can talk as much as you like about the advantages and disadvantages of this or that weapon, as well as its owners. But experience says that this is all nonsense, how it will actually be nobody can say.
      For example, the USSR in June 41 had more than 20 thousand tanks, the Germans attacked the pass with about 4 thousand tanks, and not of the best quality. In terms of airplanes, roughly speaking, roughly equal positions, in terms of human resources, about the same story. And according to the results of the first three months of battles, it was possible to raise paws at all, but it was not of course, as a result, Germany fell and its flags were thrown to the foot of the Mausoleum.
      So this Peter, whose he is there lol he can joke about as much as he wants, but the West must understand that there will be no Russia, there will be none of them, from the word at all.

      Yes, it's easier to put your people in leadership positions. Less money will be needed. I'm convinced that our fifth column is not sickly and it is worth the Americans to redirect financial flows a little as in 20 years they will have their own president. Then our government also contributes to its financial and national policies.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 22 September 2020 07: 21
    +3
    The United States has a bunch of tools for attack and response without such missiles ..... Just a diagram:
    1.mass and pinpoint strike against mines and launchers
    2. Completed that that took off on the accelerating trajectory
    3. Finished shooting of falling warheads

    With new systems, it ceases to be at least somehow realistic. The realization comes that it will arrive anyway. So they are revising the schemes.
    1. Volder
      Volder 22 September 2020 11: 11
      +1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      1.mass and pinpoint strike against mines and launchers
      Our mines are now well protected, not 1-2, but several missiles will be needed to destroy one mine. And where does the mass character come from? The dead end will overstrain to ensure this mass character.
      2. Completed that that took off on the accelerating trajectory
      How to provide it ?? Where should anti-missile missiles be launched from in order to shoot down on the booster section? Obviously not 1000 km away. At the same time, we have mines in the depths of the country ...
      3. Finished shooting of falling warheads
      They fall at hypersonic speed, i.e. it is impossible to bring down. And they fly to the goal, actively maneuvering. The American missile defense system is incapable of shooting down maneuvering blocks.
      PS I'm talking about ICBMs "Topol", "Yars", "Voevoda", "Sarmat", "Bulava".
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 22 September 2020 11: 15
        -1
        1.According to their standards, everything about everything requires about 7000-10000 kr and highly accurate MRBM.
        2.And they will finish shooting Aegis from Europe and from the seas. The new missiles have a reach of almost 1.5-2000 km. And the warheads will catch THAAD
        1. Volder
          Volder 22 September 2020 12: 15
          +2
          Quote: Zaurbek
          1.According to their standards, everything about everything requires about 7000-10000 kr and highly accurate MRBM.
          God, how far you are from the real state of affairs ... Where are the 10 thousand CDs ?? There won't be enough carriers. The maximum that they can scrape together is 3000 KR, and even then on condition that their carriers freely approach the shores of the Russian Federation.
          2.And they will finish shooting Aegis from Europe and from the seas. The new missiles have a reach of almost 1.5-2000 km.
          Thank you, amused. We have ICBM mines, I repeat, NOT on the coast, but in the depths of the Russian Federation. Imagine the distance in your mind, or take a ruler and map. In order for Aegis to shoot down ICBMs at the acceleration stage, these Aegis must be located right on the Russian coast. Question: will Russia let the Aegis carriers go straight to the shore? Stationary installations in Europe will also fall short of response times. By the way, can Aegis interceptor missiles shoot down maneuvering missiles with not yet separated blocks? Answer yourself, I know the answer.
          And the warheads will catch THAAD
          No, they won't. Again, due to the maneuvering properties and high speed.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 22 September 2020 12: 22
            -2
            Missile defense is progressing in terms of range. And they do not stand everywhere where they can stand .... and in the wrong quantities. In Romania and Poland, trial ones are already .. There is Ukraine .... Belarus and the USSR / RF with revolutions and wars 4 times in 100 years. Naturally, no one will tempt fate against the modern Russian Federation. And against the Russian 90s? With the oligarchs?
    2. Vladimir61
      Vladimir61 22 September 2020 12: 22
      +1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      The United States has a bunch of tools to attack and respond without such missiles ...

      Even a mindless snake, if it senses danger, does not attack, but hisses viciously! To be afraid and know that they will receive irreparable, as they say, damage. Therefore, they only clap their teeth and hiss.
    3. Ros 56
      Ros 56 22 September 2020 13: 06
      0
      Exactly, and the rest will sit and wait for the striped ones to start everything. fellow fool
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 22 September 2020 09: 45
    +5
    It does not seem that the Americans are preparing some kind of breakthrough in the ICBM.
    And they will not copy the Vanguard.
    They focused on medium-range missiles and tactical missiles. Including with planning warheads.
    To deal with China from the Pacific without hurting Russia.
    In aviation, it seems, the United States is preparing a technological breakthrough: high-speed methods of designing and producing combat aircraft.
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 22 September 2020 09: 56
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      high-speed methods of design and production of combat aircraft

      aircraft ... drones (read "terminators"). Affects not only the air environment.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 22 September 2020 10: 04
        +5
        Not just drones. Let's see how the production of the Raider bomber develops. They set a record time for its release. The prototype has not yet taken off, and a brand new assembly plant is already under construction.
        This is very unusual.
        ----
        The first swallow was the Boeing T-7A
        At the end of 2018, R&D began, and this month it has already completed 100 flights. Two years!
        And this is a full-fledged jet fighter. Although educational.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 22 September 2020 10: 25
          +1
          This is especially true for drones. In the United States, there are now dozens of programs for different types of aircraft, all have their own requirements, all put 23-24 years as the appearance of pre-production samples. Companies that can deal with more UAVs, the entry threshold is lower. The same Kratos is the same age as SpaceX.
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 22 September 2020 11: 18
      0
      This will provoke MRBM in the RF Far East ..... with any planners and without BG. But already with a range to the USA.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 22 September 2020 11: 36
        +2
        Before the USA - only ICBMs. Except Alaska.
        MRBM - up to 5500 km.
        From Kamchatka to California - 6500 km
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 22 September 2020 11: 54
          0
          Yes. But the bases on which the fleet and bombers are closer and they also need to be hit
        2. Operator
          Operator 22 September 2020 12: 19
          -2
          From Chukotka (missile base "Anadyr") to California - just the same 5500 km.

          For you, something else is more relevant - from what point of the Russian Federation to Israel is 5500 km? bully
  • Operator
    Operator 22 September 2020 10: 47
    -5
    PBC "Avangard" (adopted in December 2019 as part of the UR-100N UTTH complex), moving in the upper atmosphere (80-120 km) completely nullifies the existing American missile defense system, built on transatmospheric kinetic interceptors with infrared homing (lower boundary interception 130 km).

    As a result, the Americans need to at least invest in the development, production and deployment of a second missile defense system with atmospheric interceptors with radio command guidance. bully
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 22 September 2020 10: 51
    +3
    break through the existing missile defense system and hit objects of strategic importance

    and how does this affect nuclear parity? No way ...
    the Russian armed forces in terms of promising developments bypassed the most developed foreign army


    Good - once again celebrated this event. How does the Avangard complex affect a retaliatory nuclear strike? No way ...
    the latest complex significantly affects the capabilities of the strategic nuclear forces

    A naive delusion: one complex - one maneuvering block, one target. One protected target can be hit and ... this does not change anything in the containment strategy (hostage cities), does not prevent a retaliatory strike in any way.

    A similar complex with a "traditional filling" carries 10 non-maneuvering blocks, at least the same number of quasi-heavy LCs - capable of destroying a large metropolis with suburbs and major enterprises - the strategy of "hostage cities" has not gone anywhere.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 22 September 2020 12: 38
    +5
    Every time the United States tried to drag it into an arms race, it ended with a recovery in its economy, another strengthening of the United States, and the collapse of its rivals.
    This was the case in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. I think the current leadership of Russia understands this well and does not pretend to make a fourth attempt, and all these reports to the sound of panfares about the next "conciliatory" wunderwaffe are intended exclusively for domestic consumption. Well, the Americans are not without benefit, sometimes torment their average person.
  • rica1952
    rica1952 22 September 2020 14: 15
    0
    A massive strike of the triad does not hold the missile defense of either a potential enemy or ours. This has long been known, in fact, why in the 90s they abandoned the PKB (now Avangard).
  • Andobor
    Andobor 22 September 2020 14: 28
    -4
    America is hopelessly behind Russia in this respect,
    while they tried to otmaidan Russia following the example of Ukraine,
    - Russia created real weapons.
  • Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 22 September 2020 15: 59
    -3
    D. Trump's "super-duper-rocket" that made a lot of noise is in the section of "myths and tales of the redhead"
    Otherwise, the statement that mattresses will not allow someone to get ahead sounds very funny. They will sniff the dust for another 30 years.
  • Old26
    Old26 22 September 2020 16: 59
    +3
    Quote: Volder
    Our mines are now well protected, we will need not 1-2, but several missiles to destroy one mine.

    Protected in the same way as previously protected. Nobody brought the security of the silo for "Topol-M" to the level of silo "Voevoda". so that the bulk is designed to defeat conditionally 1-2 BB

    Quote: Volder
    They fall at hypersonic speed, i.e. it is impossible to bring down. And they fly to the goal, actively maneuvering. The American missile defense system is incapable of shooting down maneuvering blocks.
    PS I'm talking about ICBMs "Topol", "Yars", "Voevoda", "Sarmat", "Bulava".

    That is, the A-135M system is actually a fiction and is not capable of shooting down American BB, albeit in limited quantities? Do not forget that the blocks only enter the atmosphere at hypersonic speed. And they tend to slow down in the atmosphere. It is on this that the principle of selection of false blocks is based, when light LCs are inhibited faster than heavy ones.

    I have not yet learned how to shoot down the maneuvering units of ANY missile defense system, since they have NEVER been shot down. As for actively maneuvering BB of existing ICBMs - leave this statement on the conscience of those murziloks who write this. They tried to test maneuvering warheads at Voevoda, but after four tests the program was closed. At the same time, the maneuvering unit itself was much larger in size than the uncontrolled Voevoda combat unit.
    "Topol" maneuvering blocks. which is almost removed from service and its units are developed in the early-mid 80s - this is of course creative, but does not correspond to realities. As well as the existing BB "Yarsa". In the future, if the Anchar-RV program is brought to series, then it is quite possible that the maneuvering unit will also receive Yars and Bulava. Now they just won't understand them. Well, and "Sarmat" - such a missile has not even been tested yet ...

    Quote: rica1952
    A massive strike of the triad does not hold the missile defense of either a potential enemy or ours. This has long been known, in fact, why in the 90s they abandoned the PKB (now Avangard).

    Even a non-massive blow does not last. EMNIP, then our missile defense system of Mosca, having 100 interceptor missiles, could theoretically intercept up to 32 blocks, coming not simultaneously and not from different directions. In fact, the only missile defense system that exists at the present stage is a missile defense system capable of intercepting a maximum of a medium-range missile, and even then not during a mass launch.

    Quote: Operator
    From Chukotka (missile base "Anadyr") to California - just the same 5500 km.

    Wake up, Andrey. There has been no etyo base for almost 60 years, and many, like you, dream of a base there. Once and for all, Kazydub proved that placing something there, especially a mobile one, is money into the void. And stationary - to give the opportunity to destroy even at the start
  • venaly
    venaly 23 September 2020 18: 11
    -2
    The pride is hurt. Get used, gentlemen, that the Russians are ahead of you. No need to pout lips. Humble yourself.
  • Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 23 September 2020 18: 31
    -1
    It will take Americans 20-30 years to do this. So let's wait and see how things go. So far, all tests ended in explosions ...
  • Old26
    Old26 23 September 2020 18: 55
    +3
    Quote: KCA
    UR100NUTTH, as it were, 30 pieces from Ukraine received dry ones, and how do you know how many of them were put on the database and how many are equipped with the Avangard BB? Are you the commander of the Strategic Missile Forces? Or a super spy? Yes, it got 30 dry, and only 130 after the collapse of the USSR

    Actually, the question you are asking, comrade, belongs to the "Open secret" section. Those who try to at least keep themselves informed of the topic of interest to them understand perfectly well that even 2000 dozen "dry" ICBMs transferred to Russia in the early 3s does not mean at all that their number really remains in the region of 30. Even "dry" ICBMs can be recognized as inoperable (individual copies), because even in dry conditions, elements may fail, especially those related to sealing. But that's not even the point.

    There is still a START-3 treaty, according to which the Americans and I exchange data on the number of carriers and weapons. And if we do not publish even this in the open press, it does not mean that such materials are not published in the Western. And to take a sheet of paper, a pencil and a calculator and do elementary calculations is not so difficult. And such calculations (also confirmed by Western sources) allow us to conclude

    1. In the positional area of ​​the Tatishchevskaya division, where the bulk of the UR-100N UTTKh ICBMs were located, the number of "not deployed" silos of these missiles in 2010 was about 30. The rest of silos were converted to accommodate Topol-M ICBMs. By 2017, the number of "non-deployed" silos in the positional area of ​​this division was reduced to 20, and by 2018 to 10. In addition to them, there were still 2 regiments (20 silos) in the PR of the Kozelsk division, which is now being re-equipped with Yars-M. So elementary calculations show that no silos for UR-100N UTTKh missiles for 2020 are available. There is simply nowhere to deploy such missiles
    At the same time, in the positional area of ​​the Yasnenskaya division, work began on the reconstruction of silos from R-36M UTTH missiles to silos for 15A35-71 Avangard missiles. There was open information about this on such a resource as "Goszakupki", where it was said about work on 2 silos in the PR of this division. So far, no more public information on this topic has been found in the public domain.
    At the end of 2019, the Supreme Commander spoke about putting into service 2 Avangard complexes. The first regiment should be fully equipped with EMNIP by 2023-3024, and the second regiment by 2027. As a result of the deployment of two regiments, 12 Avangard complexes will be delivered. All. Dot. No other UR-100N UTTH and "Vanguards" can be supplied due to the lack of silos they need. In the first half of 2020, the Strategic Missile Forces received 10 ICBMs. It is unlikely that there is "Vanguard" among them, for it is necessary to re-equip the already rearmed regiments, and "Vanguard" is not in a hurry ...

    Forget about 130 UR-1990N UTTH that were in service at the beginning of 100. They have been gone for a long time. Some of them were scrapped, some were used to create the Rokot launch vehicle
  • LeftPers
    LeftPers 27 September 2020 14: 50
    0
    Omeriga must give.
  • keeper03
    keeper03 1 October 2020 20: 41
    0
    The question is, if the United States had an analogue of the Vanguard, would they destroy Russia ?! belay I think yes. sad Then why do we sit back and watch these jackals at our borders?!? request angry soldier