The Russian arsenal of cruise missiles has grown tenfold

Caliber missile launch

Over the past few years, the Armed Forces of our country have seen a significant increase in the number of missile weapons. In particular, the Russian arsenal of long-range cruise missiles has grown tenfold.

This is evidenced by the data of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, published today by the departmental newspaper "A red star".

It notes that from 2012 to 2020, the number of cruise missiles in service with the Russian army increased 37 times. This type of weapons includes sea-based missiles "Caliber", air missiles X-101, and other similar types of weapons. Many of them are part of the strategic non-nuclear forces.

The Russian defense department reports that the number of carriers of this missile has also increased over the past eight years. weapons... Their growth during the mentioned period was 13 times. These assets, also related to strategic non-nuclear forces, include the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile systems, warships, and long-range Aviation VKS of the Russian Federation.

The report also says that the share of advanced weapons in the strategic nuclear arsenal has grown by 37 percent in eight years and is now 86%. This category includes land-based, sea-based and air-based nuclear weapons.

Comments

[Machito]

Arsenal has grown 37 times over what? The article does not contain data on the number of cruise missiles. Obviously, our enemies, the Americans, have many more missiles. First of all, Russia needs to increase the number of hypersonic missiles and to file ground installations of medium and short-range missiles. Mattress toppers came out of the INF Treaty and the appearance of new Pershing in Europe is only a matter of time.

[Threaded screw]

Arsenal has grown

Thanks, Cap. You never know who does not perceive more than two words from the text, or the victims of the exam are accustomed to read everything in a summary

[Temples]

If eight years ago there was one carrier, then an increase of 13 times is 13 carriers.
Bravo!

Does the Ministry of Defense show such arithmetic to the Supreme?
Or is it that they treat the population as suckers?

It is better to be silent than to shout about an increase in tens of times, there is a chance to pass for smart.

[Kart]

Well, keep quiet.
Why whine about everything bad again?
Yours are already visible from afar.

[tikhonov66]

The plaster is removed, the client is leaving !!!
eight-))))

[krot]

the number of cruise missiles in service with the Russian army has grown 37 times

Not bad. If in 2010 there were at least 100 cruise missiles, now there are 3700. It is quite normal.

[frog]

that from 2012 to 2020, the number of cruise missiles in service with the Russian army increased 37 times. This type of weapons includes sea-based missiles "Caliber", air missiles X-101, and other similar types of weapons.

In Russian it is written in white - what else do you need? Not "calibers", but all cruise missiles ... In chorus, so to speak. And there may be a dozen and a half pencils ... Or one and a half thousand ... Or even a couple))

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: frog

In Russian it is written in white - what else do you need? Not "calibers", but all cruise missiles ... In chorus, so to speak. And there may be a dozen and a half pencils ... Or one and a half thousand ... Or even a couple))

And, let's just on the facts, as written in the sources:
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5643832
(Article from 2018)

Three years ago, on October 7, 2015, ships of the Caspian Flotilla of the Russian Navy - Project 11661 Dagestan patrol missile ship, Project 21631 small missile ships Grad Sviyazhsk, Uglich and Veliky Ustyug - made 26 launches from the Caspian Sea cruise missiles

At the same time, claims and reproaches arose regarding:

They note that during the period from 2012 to 2020, the number of cruise missiles in service with the Russian army increased 37 times.

Moreover, a reservation is made:

This type of weapons includes sea-based missiles "Caliber", air missiles X-101, and other similar types of weapons.

Therefore, if we consider that:

In total, the Kalibr missiles were used 13 times during the Russian Armed Forces operation in Syria. According to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, a total of at least 99 missiles were fired at the targets of the terrorists.

In a good scenario, even if in 2012 there were only 10 “Caliber” missiles. The fact that there were 3 of them (namely, “Caliber”) cannot but rejoice ...
You should take into account one important feature: you cannot launch a rocket from a stool. So here:

So, with a rough estimate, summing up the carriers in service and preparing for deployment in 2018-2019, the Russian Navy can theoretically already now launch more than 200 cruise missiles in one salvo.

And in the near future:

With the commissioning of all contracted new ships and boats after 2023, this number will increase to more than 500. Even without missiles on modernized ships, the number of which is now difficult to estimate, the figure is already impressive.

Therefore, the number of missiles available is important, but no more than the number of their carriers. And in this regard, Russia is slowly but surely building up its power.

[frog]

Mercy is awful, colleague, for the reaction .... From only, due to congenital stupidity, I did not understand .... Are you still scolding me, or not? And where should your question be applied? I would venture to repeat myself if you already decided to turn to sources ...

the number of cruise missiles in service with the Russian army

Strictly speaking, an army is not a navy. Generally speaking, the network is such a term "Armed Forces", but they are professionals, they know better
Further, we are talking, as for me, about all cruise missiles, in all the armed forces. How many of this list are "pencils" - hz. How many of them are there? And so on ... That is, as in the good old days. "The number of fighters has grown by 37%" .... Ochhor .... And? Whether to rejoice, whether to sob ???
Not to mention what these professionals mean by "like"? Everything except ballistics and aeroballistics? So almost all decent rackets can go there)))) Considering that the source is the same Star - in general, a conversation about the department of political officers, those very classic ...

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: frog

From only, because of congenital stupidity, I did not understand .... You still scold me, or not?

Oh, didn't "+" say anything? I just found another concern (number of speakers) and am sharing it.

[frog]

I'm madly sorry I'm sorry, sir))))
In fact, there will be enough reasons for concern for the grandchildren ... But this heated discussion .........))) the usual cartoon in an asterisk is surprising. Although not quite
However, there are problems with the carriers themselves and ...... features of carriers and in general ..... I'm for your concern))) The number is growing, no one argues. From only the quantity itself says little, as we know ...

[Garris199]

Quote: ROSS 42

let in 2012 there were only 10 “Caliber” missiles. The fact that there were 3 of them (namely “Caliber”) cannot but rejoice ...

I'm wildly sorry. 10x37 = 370

[alekseykabanets]

Quote: krot

Not bad. If in 2010 there were at least 100 cruise missiles, now there are 3700. It is quite normal.

And if one, how many? Absolutely "about nothing" article. I understand that no one will publish data on the number of missiles, but then what is the point in such articles?

[Vladimir247]

And there were 5. Or maybe 3? Also normal?

[maykl8]

Something like that.

[Egg]

That's right, the spies have moved, lay out the full alignment for them, yeah, right now

[Vlad is short]

Why do you need to know this, foreign agent?

[Cron]

Quote: Bearded

Arsenal has grown 37 times over what? The article does not contain data on the number of cruise missiles. Obviously, our enemies, the Americans, have many more missiles. First of all, Russia needs to increase the number of hypersonic missiles and to file ground installations of medium and short-range missiles. Mattress toppers came out of the INF Treaty and the appearance of new Pershing in Europe is only a matter of time.

Russia needs to build up its economy under the protection of strategic weapons. Not forgetting about the promising developments that you mentioned, and, if possible, supply them to the troops so that the factories can function and the personnel develop. And trying to compete with them in quantitative terms is a disastrous and doomed business, because the resources are simply not comparable.

[Temples]

Quote: Cron

Russia needs to build up its economy under the protection of strategic weapons.

A bad dancer is shaking his slippers.
These guys have been trying to grow the economy for thirty years soon, until they only manage to increase the loot in dollars and euros in their own wallets.
The economy does not work out.

And what has strategic weapons to do with it?

Apparently you are about protecting the personal property of these guys economists?

[Cron]

Quote: Temples

Apparently you are about protecting the personal property of these guys economists?

You like to round things up, not thirty years, but less. During part of this period, your liberal trash has caused so much damage that the echoes of that bacchanalia will be heard for a long time

[alekseykabanets]

Quote: Cron

You like to round things up, not thirty years, but less. During part of this period, your liberal trash has caused so much damage that the echoes of that bacchanalia will be heard for a long time

Isn't that the same liberal trash who "makes decisions" now? Someone forced Chubais to cut the forest? Liberal Gref, what is he doing now? They can be listed for a long time. You probably forgot to mention them?

[K-612-O]

You are either an amateur or an alarmist. The military-industrial complex is one of the most powerful engines of the economy, let me remind you that the share of the real sector of the economy in Russia is higher than the average European and American. Yes, we do not print money and there is no huge share of speculative capital, but our capital can be touched, it is real, and the numbers are in the computer. I am already silent about the huge number of jobs that the military-industrial complex provides.

[Cron]

Quote: K-612-O

You are either an amateur or an alarmist. The military-industrial complex is one of the most powerful engines of the economy, let me remind you that the share of the real sector of the economy in Russia is higher than the average European and American. Yes, we do not print money and there is no huge share of speculative capital, but our capital can be touched, it is real, and the numbers are in the computer. I am already silent about the huge number of jobs that the military-industrial complex provides.

I'll even give you a plus sign, because I agree with you. But this does not negate the fact that in quantitative terms, we are not able to compete with them. And excessive build-up will only lead to high maintenance costs, limiting funding for promising developments. You can be a lot intimidated by the American military budget, but there a huge part goes stupidly for the maintenance of this entire huge military infrastructure.
And as you wrote correctly, this is just the opinion of an amateur

[Elephant]

Quote: K-612-O

the share of the real sector of the economy in Russia is higher than the average European and American.

And in our city (with 600 thousand population) in the south of Russia under the Union there were 9 large enterprises, now - not a single one, only markets.

[Alexey Sommer]

Quote: Elephant

in our city (with 600 thousand population) in the south of Russia during the Soviet Union there were 9 large enterprises, now - not a single one, only markets.

Greetings!
You were given a comparison not with the USSR, but with Europe and the United States.

[Vlad is short]

And what kind of city is this, I wonder, that produces nothing but trade services?

[businessv]

Quote: K-612-O

, let me remind you that the share of the real sector of the economy in Russia is higher than the average European and American.

That's right, but this is not because we have a powerful production base, but because, unfortunately, our service market is very poorly developed compared to the West. For minke whales, 70% of GDP is occupied by the service sector, and these are intangible resources!

[alekseykabanets]

Quote: K-612-O

You are either an amateur or an alarmist. The military-industrial complex is one of the most powerful engines of the economy, let me remind you that the share of the real sector of the economy in Russia is higher than the average European and American.

Can we compare in quantitative terms? Or by industry? What don't you compare with China? Is the military-industrial complex, in your opinion, a self-sufficient branch of the economy? Do you export all weapons?

[Vadim237]

Compared to 2000, over 20 years, the Russian economy has grown six times, taking into account all inflation, crises and the fall of the ruble.

[Rubi0]

At least someone remembered about the economy. New weapons are good, but for this you need to sell them to someone, well, or shove the decommissioned ones off to some Sumerians for loans

[businessv]

Quote: Cron

And trying to compete with them in quantitative terms is a disastrous and doomed business, because the resources are simply not comparable.

In this case, it's not even about resources, it's about technology. Oddly enough, but the Americans, during their hegemony, have lost many technologies. For example, industrial technology. nuclear fuel production.

[Vlad is short]

That's right, it is enough to be in quantitative parity in strategic arms

[onstar9]

Quote: Cron

Russia needs to build up its economy under the protection of strategic weapons. Not forgetting about the promising developments that you mentioned, and, if possible, supply them to the troops so that the factories can function and the personnel develop.

And what is it all for? You are constantly asked this question, and you do not answer it. You are told that the entire government, all the ministers of Russia, all the deputies, all the officials, all the significant "gold diggers", not to mention the oligarchs, actually live in the United States and in Courchevel. Will you deny it? Their families live and study there, their children, wives and mistresses are all citizens of the United States, Miami, Monaco and London. All their villas, yachts, islands, billions of dollars in accounts are there (or do you think that in Sberbank?). So why then would this Russian power "elite" ... ... fight America and the West? What for? Ditch your children there, your castles and bank accounts? The Russian elite support the so-called "defense capability" of the country, only so that the West does not prevent them from continuing to plunder the people of Russia and the country, and deposit the stolen money there with them, abroad. That's all. And they are not going to fight the West at all. Because all their wealth and real life is there, in the West, and not in "bastard" Russia. Of course you are offended to hear that. You don’t have any money and palaces abroad, so you don’t mind "bombing" the West. But the top of Russia does not want this. Where will they go to live "for real", to Ryazan or Kolyma? Have you read about Malyshev? That's it ... And she is still a trifle ...

[Vladimir247]

Continuous blah blah blah ... kremlebots ... with a bunch of pros expected per post ...
Stamps from Prigozhin's manuals:
If possible, supply the troops ...
(and, alas, there are no opportunities ... well, no, and no trial ...
So that factories could ... (before the pro-Putin liberals, no one knew how factories work ...

To compete with them ... (and how they sang about the almighty hand of the market that will lift us up ..)
..
They have encircled the country, now the cover actions in the media are working out ...

[Vlad is short]

Some vyser, sorry for the expression.

[Svetlana]

compared to what?
...
beginning of the article: They note that for the period from 2012 on 2020 year.

Read slowly, with an arrangement, and then there will be fewer questions. Or the questions will be completely different. And the number and
minimum assortment are labeled "for official use". Eo most likely under "Top Secret"

[Vadim237]

If this is so, then at least 580 X 55 cruise missiles that were in service in 2012 must be multiplied by 37, we get 21460 X 555, 101, 102 missiles and all caliber modifications of all anti-ship missiles.

[reader65]

Yes, write already 2146000, why should you feel sorry for them, enemies.

[YOUR]

Americans do not hesitate to open data on how many and what weapons, incl. CD and by the types that they have.
For some reason, we have this secret, but for our own citizens. They supply their "partners" with such data. Conventional Weapons Treaty.

[K-612-O]

We woke up, we got out of this contract for 8-10 years already.

[Souchastnik]

Americans do not hesitate to open data on how many and what weapons

I really love Mikhail Zadornov and his phrase "Well, stupid." But I don’t think that they are spreading the ALL THE TRUTH to the public.

[YOUR]

What will change if they say that they have 13 KR or 000. They do not post their performance characteristics, except for flight range and altitude. So it is known without their confessions.

[Souchastnik]

What will change...

Well, nothing, so nothing.
Although someone can get very nervous. And this is already a psychological effect.

[YOUR]

Question???? Who???? Pintos, so we won't reach in range, there is Poplar, Bulava, Sineva, etc. rule.

[Alex777]

About 4000 KR in the States. Data was published.
But this figure is floating.
They constantly launch / buy something.

[YOUR]

At the moment Tomahawk 7300, production continues. For other CDs - AGM-86 is currently more than 1500 units, AGM-129 ACM under 1000, AGM-158 JASSM - more than 2000.
These are only those with a flight range of 2000 km and more.
Why do you belittle the numbers like that?

[Alex777]

Send me a link, please. I will study it with interest.
I didn't count JASSM. Only Tomahawks.

[YOUR]

What links do you still need. Take the Tomahawk CD into the search engine and read heaps of information, including by quantity. And so on for all the types of CD that I have given. It is even easier to enter the search engine to type US Cruise Missiles. The first will be a link to the category of US cruise missiles, there is a listing of all available, formerly in service and promising. Open links and read.

[YOUR]

But where did you get these 4000. Question ??? Three Ps? Floor, finger, ceiling

[Vladimir247]

Where did you get it?
----
Yes, about 15 years ago, the system of its strategy of simultaneous striking at our points was made public ... didn't they know? There, and these quantities were written many times.

[YOUR]

I didn’t know, and the quantity was always different.

[Alex777]

But where did you get these 4000. Question ??? Three Ps? Floor, finger, ceiling

THEORY, NOT CONFIRMED BY PRACTICE

Firstly, on submarines, only those cruise missiles that are located in special mines are "guaranteed" (in total, on 4 SSGNs and 38 submarines, this is 1072 missiles). As for the ammunition fired through torpedo tubes, it is obviously based on torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, otherwise the boat will not be able to conduct sea battles, for which it is primarily intended. This is permissible against a country that does not have a navy, but Russia is not yet one of those. In fact, in this ammunition, the number of CDs is at most a few units, and sometimes they are not at all. The same can be said for cruisers and destroyers. Each cell of the UVP can contain either a Tomahawk CD, or a Standard anti-aircraft guided missile (SAM), or 4 Sea Sparrow missiles, or an ASROC anti-submarine missile. A full load of "Tomahawks" is possible only in a war against a country that has neither a navy nor an air force. During the first Iraqi war, there was a precedent for the launch of 122 Tomahawks by one cruiser, but precisely because Iraq could not reach the cruiser with its planes, and had no submarines at all.

Secondly, a significant part (from one-third to one-half) of submarines and ships is at each moment in inter-line or overhaul, and also at the transition to the bases. All of them, naturally, fall out of the overall combat potential.

Third, a little less than 5 thousand sea-launched cruise missiles were produced in the USA (SLCM), of which up to 2 thousand were spent on trials and in wars. Now the basis of the stock of naval missile launchers is the newest modification "Tactical Tomahawk" - 2,2 of them were manufactured. This modification cannot be launched through torpedo tubes, respectively, on submarines in total there simply cannot be more than the aforementioned 1072 units. The total number of SLCMs available in the US Navy is now, apparently, 2,5-2,8 thousand. As for air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs), the Air Force has no more than 1,6 thousand of them (in total, about 2,1 thousand were manufactured). Thus, in reality, the United States does not have not only 13 thousand, but even 5 thousand cruise missiles. And hardly more than half of them can be quickly deployed simultaneously. Which, however, is also quite a lot.

[YOUR]

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Firstly, only Tomahawks are considered, and secondly, only sea-based. But what about the planes? Further, the author considers only those missiles that are on ships and submarines, and those that are at storage bases are waiting in the wings? In Syria, something was shot there with full ammunition, and now everything will be a boat with empty launchers.

[Alex777]

I cited a piece of the article: "A non-nuclear disarming strike against our strategic nuclear forces is possible, but purely theoretically" by Khramchikhin because it describes in detail various aspects of the US's massive use of the Kyrgyz Republic against the Russian Federation.

[YOUR]

I repeat once again, the article is somehow one-sided. Only the marine component and only the Tomahawks. It is advisable to read the article in full, reset the address. It is possible that you only paid attention to this piece.
However, the name is the author is I will look for myself.

[Vladimir247]

Your
--------
Well, then they wrote that there are 2,5 thousand, and they are working to bring it to 5. And the concept was called, in my opinion, "a global non-nuclear strike".
And it seems that this concept has not been canceled. Our old, still Soviet developments, based on the range of axes, suggest a blow from the Kara Sea and the Laptev Sea ... but these were calculations for 2008 ... now the range could be increased. That is, they will collect the ship group, in those latitudes it is optimal in June. From there they reach the Urals, where the main centers for the production of heads are Snezhinsk, Ozersk.
But all these calculations make sense if we had our own government, and not ... Mishustin and others like them, which in fact is a liquidator from the world.

[XXXIII]

Quote: YOUR

Americans do not hesitate to open data on how many and what weapons, incl. CD and by the types that they have.
For some reason, we have this secret, but for our own citizens. They supply their "partners" with such data. Conventional Weapons Treaty.

Well, they will write you numbers, it will become easier for you. Who will reveal to you the complete data on weapons ?! The Americans simply advertise their military-industrial complex with these numbers, while they themselves are quietly waiting for orders or begin to pester others, they say, buy it, or else sanctions.

[YOUR]

Well, our complete data is not needed, at least the amount.

[antivirus]

nothing is said about aircraft carriers - Shoigu has not built a single aircraft carrier for everything
and rockets and Strategic Missile Forces + VKS are not a necessary ballast.
or needed?
and not a ballast?

[halpat]

Quote: Bearded

Arsenal has grown 37 times over what? The article does not contain data on the number of cruise missiles. Obviously, our enemies, the Americans, have many more missiles. First of all, Russia needs to increase the number of hypersonic missiles and to file ground installations of medium and short-range missiles. Mattress toppers came out of the INF Treaty and the appearance of new Pershing in Europe is only a matter of time.

was 1 piece, now 37 pieces.
What's not clear?

[iouris]

Quote: Bearded

Arsenal has grown 37 times over what?

Compared to 1913.

[Yaro Polk]

You should become the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, you all know, because now there are only fools sitting there, who cannot calculate anything.)

[Evil Booth]

truly taG and why forced treatment was canceled. any commentator always knows everything best. Why NATO having thousands of missiles for months bombing Serbia with bombs while using sorties many times more than all the entire NATO ... while this is all against the army in 2 incomplete regiments .. YET is not clear. whether the number of cr is not so important, whether reptilians. but I just want to can not sketch that Russia is all and the United States, but what about the logic.

[Vladimir247]

Would you ...
-----
OK. So there is nothing to write idiotic articles. To whom are the claims?

[1976AG]

Quote: Bearded

Arsenal has grown 37 times over what? The article does not contain data on the number of cruise missiles. Obviously, our enemies, the Americans, have many more missiles. First of all, Russia needs to increase the number of hypersonic missiles and to file ground installations of medium and short-range missiles. Mattress toppers came out of the INF Treaty and the appearance of new Pershing in Europe is only a matter of time.

Arsenal has grown 37 times compared to what it was at the end of 2011 - beginning of 2012, it seems everything is very clear. The exact numbers are classified as state secrets and cannot be published. Even if some figures appear, they will definitely not correspond to reality. And why do you need exact numbers?

[2 Level Advisor]

but at least approximately how much was / was that? after all, if there were 2 pieces, and there were 100 pieces. this is 50 times growth ..
However, the news is great - of course, we need to close the gap with the US, they only have Tomogavkov dofiga - several thousand ..

[Threaded screw]

and at least approximately how much was / was that after all, if there were 2 pieces, and there were 100 pieces.

It's a mystery, but I think you're not far from the truth

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

Tell me, is it forgivable for "non-USE victims" to write with errors and without punctuation marks?

not far

[Threaded screw]

Tell me, is it forgivable for "non-USE victims" to write with errors and without punctuation marks?

This is enternet baby)

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

Quote: Threaded screw

This is enternet baby)

And what? Do the victims of the Unified State Exam write letters to you on paper and send them in envelopes?

[aszzz888]

Threaded Screw (Screw
Today, 09: 39

-2
Tell me, is it forgivable for "non-USE victims" to write with errors and without punctuation marks?
This is enternet baby)

He's here on a volunteer basis commas, and errors. He is not capable of more.

[El Chuvachino]

The person is either literate or not. What does the internet have to do with this?

[aszzz888]

Sidor Amenpodestovich (Flavius ​​Vespasianovich)
Tell me, is it forgivable for "non-USE victims" to write with errors and without punctuation marks? Today, 09: 3

And if in the text? Are you here on VO as a primary school teacher to point out mistakes?

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

And if in the text? tongue Are you here on VO attached as a primary school teacher to point out mistakes? wassat

Look, the real S has arrived!
Does the belly interfere with steering?
So there should be a lot of this good person, what have you got to do with it?

If a person talks about the victims of the exam, then at least he should write without mistakes.
And if he does not bother on this score, then he has no moral right to spread about the victims of the exam.
Cross and panties, dear.

[aszzz888]

Sidor Amenpodestovich (Flavius ​​Vespasianovich)
Today, 12: 00

Have you left at least one comet on the subject, or just look who makes mistakes! You have beguiled a hike with a website! Adieu, student!

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

Why are there so few emoticons? Are you shy or scared?

[aszzz888]

Sidor Amenpodestovich (Flavius ​​Vespasianovich)
Today, 12: 07

-1
Why are there so few emoticons? Are you shy or scared?

"Chill out Vasya!" (from)

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

I understood!
You haven’t been chosen as a commentator of the year, no one has even proposed your candidacy.
And you hoped so ...

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Sidor Amenpodestovich

Cross and panties, dear.

So all the same - SIDOR or ... uh ... FLAVIUS !?
And then it somehow does not fit with the "cross and cowards" ...
Damn, cognitive dissonance, in nature, it turns out !!!

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

So all the same - SIDOR or ... uh ... FLAVIUS !?

These are minor characters from the Strugatskys' novel Lame Destiny. Specifically from the chapter "Izpital". If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. Like "Menzuru Zoili" by Akutagawa Ryunoskyo.
Let me give you the required paragraph. May the moderators forgive me.
"And my foreboding did not deceive me. He told me how three dozen
years ago, a young enthusiastic inventor brought
the Writers' House of Creativity in Kukushkin its first model "Izpital" -
"a meter of writing talent"; and how Zakhar Kupidonych without
permission I planted the manuscript of Sidor Amenpodestovich in the car and then with
enthusiastically read out the conclusion of Izpital in the dining room, however, no one
surprised; and what an ugly fight took place near the indifferent
cars between Flivius Vespasianovich and the tactless editor of the publishing house
"Moscow Literary Man"; and how the anniversary was hopelessly ruined
Gaussians Nikiforovna, when one hundred and seven servings of sturgeon for
spit and fillet in Suvorov style, delivered from the club on a personal ZIS;
and how Lukyan Lyubomudrovich tried to bribe the inventor so that he
twisted something in his damn apparatus, - first offered the box
vodka, then money and, finally, a living space in one of the high-rise buildings ...
In a word, about how hell stood for eight days in the House of Creativity in Kukushkin
pitch, and on the night of the ninth day the car was smashed to smithereens, and after another
day Methodius Kirilich finished this story in full accordance with
the disappeared rules of conflict resolution.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Sidor Amenpodestovich

If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.

Thank you. But I'm more and more specializing in fantasy ...
Since childhood, I love fairy tales so that "naval life" (sometimes beastly) does not wear out to hiccups ... Especially when inspections and inspections of the upper Moscow rolled ...
And when I was already serving in Glavka, the habit remained and helped to look at everything through the prism of a "wunderland" ...
(And so we will win! (C))

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

(And so we will win! (C)

"In peaceful days, do not be discouraged!
And go ahead and play in battle "
D.V. Davydov, "The Hussar Feast".

[Machito]

Quote: 2 level advisor

but at least approximately how much was / was that? after all, if there were 2 pieces, and there were 100 pieces. this is 50 times growth ..
However, the news is great - of course, we need to close the gap with the US, they only have Tomogavkov dofiga - several thousand ..

There was one rocket, now 37. This is of course a joke. But the article contains little information.

[Kart]

All the jokers are now joking under the article "Myths in the USSR and Russia .."

[antivirus]

but at least approximately how much was / was that? after all, if there were 2 pieces, and there were 100 pieces. this is 50 times growth ..


+100500

[YOUR]

You were right to notice that we speak only Tomahawks, and there are others. For example: AGM-86 of which there are currently more than 1500 units, AGM-129 ACM under 1000, AGM-158 JASSM - more than 2000.
These are only those with a flight range of 2000 km and more.
Well, the well-known Tomahawk - of which 7500 were produced and production continues. Those. At present the Americans have more than 12 thousand cruise missiles with a range of more than 2000 km.
How many do we have? And in our country their number has increased 37 times, but in absolute numbers, how much?

[Vadim237]

The United States is still armed with tactical gliding bombs that can be equipped with an AGM-154 engine, a gliding range of 560 kilometers, more than 24000 such bombs have been fired and production continues.

[YOUR]

I wrote only about the CD with a range of over 2000 km. And so they and we have a lot of things in storehouses.

[Hermit21]

they only have dofiga Tomogavks - several thousand

About 2 thousand for the entire fleet. If we add up our fleet, long-range aviation, Iskanders, I think more than 900-1000 KRBD will be released. Moreover, all of them can be equipped with SBCHs, in contrast to the "Tomahawks"

[Alexander X]

It's good when the stock is available. He, as you know, "does not pull his pocket"

[Jacket in stock]

What is a cruise missile?
Well, here's the "Caliber" for example.
This is a 300 kg bomb with a motor.
And why is she so scary?
For comparison, 8 kilograms of bombs were dropped on Vietnam, and it did not help them much.
And there are only a few dozen small bombs. Whom can they defeat? Or even just scare?

[antivirus]

I am a "vest in stock" and I know that you can destroy 50 bunkers and 500 viaduct bridges and put your "partner" on the toilet, think about the meaning of life.
then and further you can break concrete-steel - if they don't understand

[Stepan S]

The Americans dropped 8 kg of free-fall bombs, which for the most part plowed the ground, and each missile can fly into a personal window and destroy an important object.

[K-612-O]

In Caliber, you can attach a "bomb" of about 100 kg, but with a capacity of 10-15 kt

[Kart]

Quote: Jacket in stock

What is a cruise missile?
Well, here's the "Caliber" for example.
This is a 300 kg bomb with a motor.
And why is she so scary?

Yes, nothing of course, it's a Russian rocket.
So, rusty iron stolen from the Sumerians.
Sleep well.

[Vadim237]

You are lagging behind life now in the United States, most of the bombs are guided and in Vietnam they used 99% of free-falling bombs then guided bombs only appeared now a trifle like the planning GBU 39

capable of destroying any object within a radius of 110 kilometers with an accuracy of 50 cm hitting the F 15E, they can be hung 28 pieces, I will not be surprised that in the future this bomb will be equipped with a nuclear warhead of 5 kilotons

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Vadim237

I will not be surprised that in the future this bomb will be equipped with a nuclear warhead of 5 kilotons

But why?
If and as you write, it is already capable of destroying any target.

[Evil Booth]

for such longness, a tailwind and a discharge height of 15 km are needed. but they will shoot him at an altitude of 10 from 250 km ... another 140 is missing. and accuracy if there is no rain, but there will be jps. and there will be no jps)) and why are they? good old f16 will blind c400 and the whole army will not blind f16.

[Mountain shooter]

Obviously, it was not 2, and it was not 100. According to the Amerov missiles, there was information about the number of sea-based about 5000. Sea and air in total about 7000. What has been announced for Russia now is estimated at 3.5-4.5 thousand. airborne (about 500). Not a disaster anymore. There are few Zircons and Onyxes yet. Zircons are only just. But we have them, and they do not.

[Hermit21]

Cut the sturgeon, for the entire fleet there are about 2000 Tomahawks, nuclear AGM-86 300, non-nuclear ones were removed from service. If you add JASSM-ER, there will be more

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: Hermit21

Cut sturgeon, for the entire fleet about 2000 "Tomahawks", nuclear AGM-86 300

I will not, they have just such an assessment in the open press. In the fleet, what is in the launchers and what is in the warehouse - if not divided, then approximately as I wrote.

[Hermit21]

In the open press they also have tanks for 3000, yeah. When in SV and NG there are one and a half thousand

[prior]

Everything is strictly according to the conservation law:
if it increases somewhere, then somewhere it will definitely decrease,
the arsenal is growing, the standard of living is falling ...

[rocket757]

If you look at it, this is always the case, with one amendment .... the standard of living does not fall for everyone!
The one "who needs it", with the standard of living, everything is fine, in any case.
A couple of questions arise - Is it possible? Is it so necessary?

[prior]

This usually continues until the "whoever is needed" is raised on the pitchfork.
The answer naturally arises: this is possible and so it should be.

[rocket757]

Quote: prior

The answer naturally arises: this is possible and so it should be.

With all my peaceful mood, the option DO NOT ARM is now impossible, because the situation is like this - I WANT PEACE, PREPARE FOR WAR.

[Kart]

This is not what the comrade is getting excited about.
He is offended that it is not he who is getting richer, but others, the wrong ones.
He probably wants to take everything away from the wrong, and give it to the right people like him.

[Stepan S]

You do not have a good command of the "laws", at the level - "it would be better to give it to pensioners"

[prior]

The main law: "All kinds of mothers are needed, all kinds of mothers are important."
Otherwise, it is skewed. And where there is a bias, there are consequences ...

Joke.
Petka comes in to see Vasily Ivanovich.
He sits in shorts and a tie from Versace.
"Why did you put on a tie Vasily Ivanovich?"
"What if someone comes in, and I have a tie from Versace!"
"Why no pants?"
"There was not enough money for Petka's pants."

[rocket757]

Quote: prior

Otherwise, it is skewed. And where there is a bias, there are consequences ...

"Guns instead of butter" is a very dead-end, disastrous option.
Option

Quote: prior

until "who needs" is raised on the pitchfork.

After all, this is not a call to rob, disarm, but a reminder that we must not only think about ourselves, but take care of those who are the basis of everything !!! Strength and support of the state!
The people, the creator, must live with dignity !!! He deserves it, unlike those who always have everything, always good.

[XXXIII]

Quote: rocket757

Strength and support of the state!

The people of the state and not otherwise, everything grows from there, the economy, the army, weapons. Honestly, the generals do not live in poverty, but to re-equip a soldier with modern weapons, there is no money in the budget. Everywhere you need to keep balance, prosperity and opportunities, but as you can see, the imbalance from 90g remains.

[rocket757]

Quote: XXXIII

the skew from 90g remains.

All the same, that period is already different from the present. Then there was a period of primary capital accumulation, in fact, the plundering of the state, the robbery of everyone and everything, by individuals, structures, communities !!! Such a period is never peaceful, good for everyone who does not participate in the process of dividing the public "pie", wealth and resources that belonged to EVERYONE before.
Now is the period of increasing wealth for those who already have it and the gradual impoverishment of everyone else! Also not sugar, but without global cataclysms in society.
They get rich, we mutter in our kitchens and in front of the TV.

[XXXIII]

Quote: rocket757

Now is the period of increasing wealth for those who already have it and the gradual impoverishment of everyone else! Also not sugar, but without global cataclysms in society.

Then such a system will inevitably collapse, only it will be tougher.

[rocket757]

Quote: XXXIII

Then such a system will inevitably collapse, only it will be tougher.

Maybe this, maybe this ... the system is inhuman, bone, but under the pressure of circumstances, cosmetic, minor changes can be carried out. All are not solid fools of safety, they are engaged in providing it.

[Alexey Sommer]

Quote: prior

Everything is strictly according to the conservation law:
if it increases somewhere, then somewhere it will definitely decrease,
the arsenal is growing, the standard of living is falling ...

Hi!
This statement is worse than a mistake.
This is a blatant lie.
They said the same thing during the collapse of the USSR, they say you don't have enough jeans and sausage, because you have a lot of missiles, planes and tanks. You cut them and that and heal well-fed and in jeans, shod sneakers.
The USSR was destroyed, the planes and tanks were cut into missiles, and my stomachs were almost cramped by hunger.
Therefore, stop telling tales about these relationships.
You evoke a powerful antipathy towards yourself with such insolent lies.
Everyone already understands this.
Your curators taught us wisdom in the 90s ..

[XXXIII]

Quote: Alexey Sommer

Quote: prior

Everything is strictly according to the conservation law:
if it increases somewhere, then somewhere it will definitely decrease,
the arsenal is growing, the standard of living is falling ...

Hi!
This statement is worse than a mistake.
This is a blatant lie.
They said the same thing during the collapse of the USSR, they say you don't have enough jeans and sausage, because you have a lot of missiles, planes and tanks. You cut them and that and heal well-fed and in jeans, shod sneakers.
The USSR was destroyed, the planes and tanks were cut into missiles, and my stomachs were almost cramped by hunger.
Therefore, stop telling tales about these relationships.
You evoke a powerful antipathy towards yourself with such insolent lies.
Everyone already understands this.
Your curators taught us wisdom in the 90s ..

Traitors were not there, but in the country, and now there are still new ones. And they drank weapons because the "one-celled communists" already at that time did not know and did not know how to govern the country and lead it in the right direction. And it was just necessary to expand the economy and foreign trade, but power pulled to the west and as it turned out, there is not enough space for everyone. If it were not for the fear for what was stolen and the helplessness of that government, the USSR would have digested this capitalism no worse than China, even better. Therefore, it was not they who proposed, but the authorities agreed to this (they simply waited at the doors of the West for such a proposal), and they offered a lot. The people were just against it and said that we ourselves would do it no worse, then people were not sold for gum, but who listened.

[prior]

You took my comment as a call to disarm. And this is fundamentally wrong. I am for balance in all areas. But in any case, the main thing is people, workers and children and pensioners. The USSR was fully equipped to the point of collapse. What tanks, missiles, planes and ships he lacked yet ?! Sausage with tights, or rather their absence, won. And the fall of Russia and the army into the abyss of devastation under the leadership of traitors on the advice of foreign "democrats" is about something completely different, it is just a consequence of the skew "tanks instead of oil." I don't want to repeat it. But we are being led to this.

[Volga073]

Good diplomacy starts with nuclear weapons.

[rotmistr60]

The information is positive, which means there is something to respond to the likely enemy (NATO). But even here there will always be dissatisfied people (although the same ones). A little - bad, increased - again bad, tell by the piece how much it was and how much it became (can you show the F-1 admission first?), The money goes to the wrong place, etc., etc. So you then first decide for yourself what you want.

[Fantazer911]

Fashingon will now have a real chance, to blame us, Russia, for building up missile weapons, which gives them one more time to break the START treaty, like they wrote correctly, and blame them for all grave sins, and impose additional sanctions on everything and everyone!
The howl overseas in Fashington will not be weak, but as the Chinese wrote, when cutting weapons, in particular white swans in Ukraine, the United States did not even think of cutting their b52s, their partners were their mothers!

[K-612-O]

Why do we need this agreement, which does not work anyway. And sea and air-based cruise missiles do not hit it anyway

[Fantazer911]

You clearly misunderstood the meaning, I'm not about preserving the treaty, but about the fact that they will once again find a reason to blame us, Russia for all grave problems and again throw sanctions like sand in a sandbox, but for those who could not comprehend the text I wrote, you if only to throw minuses on the fan, and good luck couch expre ...!

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

the number of cruise missiles in service with the Russian army has grown 37 times

1st to 37th?
From 2 to 74 ...

Starting from a low base - so colossal growth can be shown
Manipulating numbers.

[Kart]

Exactly.
Where did you get the number 1 for example?
And even if 10? (which is absurd in itself, in any case more).

[7,62x54]

"By the power of your imagination, imagine what a wonderful residential area will be created here. Only one of them will have 740 gas stoves installed, that is, exactly 740 times more than in our entire city before 1913."

[set of sets]

Judging by the fact that the defense industry complex by the year 12 was working at full strength, at the moment we can talk about tens of thousands of missiles. Or at least ten thousand.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: set of sets

Judging by the fact that the defense industry complex by the year 12 was working at full strength, at the moment we can talk about tens of thousands of missiles. Or at least ten thousand.

:)
I dare to assure you that the military-industrial complex can hardly make a dozen CRs a month - you have bent ten thousand :)))
In ten years if money is given :)))

[set of sets]

Where does the data come from? From Wikipedia?

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: set of sets

Where is the data from

[set of sets]

It is clear that your knowledge is 0.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: set of sets

It is clear that your knowledge is 0.

I confess - the Colonel has not been in the subject for a long time ...

[set of sets]

“The defense industry of Russia for the II quarter of 2017 delivered to the Armed Forces more than 60 cruise missiles of the“ Caliber ”type, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Wednesday at the day of military acceptance (conference call of the military and industry).

This is only ,, Caliber ,,. And more than 60 is how much more? 1, 2 or 100?
Judging by the fact that we all like to keep secret, I suppose that much more. And this is only for a quarter (3 months) and only ,, calibers ,,.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: set of sets

at the moment we are talking about tens of thousands of missiles.

alas, it cannot. Russia produces one hundred and one and a half, maximum maybe two hundred KR per year. These are the realities. There are no tens of thousands of cruise missiles at all.

[lucul]

alas, it cannot. Russia produces one hundred and one and a half, maximum maybe two hundred KR per year. These are the realities. There are no tens of thousands of cruise missiles at all.

Especially for you article))))
I heard these mantras about 200 missiles a year back in 2014)))
Especially for you - we have increased it 37 times, and you still have an old song about only 200 a year.))))

[Lex_is]

These are your fantasies.

State Defense Order 2016:
100 long-range cruise missiles of the Kalibr complex and supersonic anti-ship missiles of the Onyx complex,
State Defense Order 2017: 116 Kalibr operational-tactical cruise missiles.
State Defense Order 2018:
46 "Caliber".
State defense order in 2019: 55 Onyx, 48 Caliber, 50 missiles for Iskander-M operational-technical missile systems.

[lucul]

These are your fantasies.

Yeah, otherwise it hangs in the public domain, yeah)))

[Lex_is]

I do not know what exactly is hanging on you, and in what access it is.

And every year it reports on the purchases of weapons of defense mines. And the data on purchases are on the official website of the Ministry of Defense.

Or do you think that Mr. Shoigu is brazenly lying, voicing how much of what was put into service in a year, and only voices in your head tell you the terrible truth?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: lucul

increased by 37 times

I read it, thank you) What date? If about three dozen, then 150 per year - it fits. You can take a calculator and argue with it)

[lucul]

About what date? If about three dozen, then 150 per year - it fits. You can take a calculator and argue with it)

And then you put everything on a silver platter)))
Count from the first rate per year - 200 pieces.)))

[Grigory_45]

I am used to starting from real numbers, and not from fantasies like you. They are not interesting to anyone. After all, you don't realize that production (especially of new models) is always developing slowly. That there is not only a profit in missiles, but also their decline (both training and live firing).

[Grigory_45]

Quote: lucul

Count from the first rate per year - 200 pieces

why should I count from this count? at least one argument? And what is meant by the words "from the first rate"?

[set of sets]

,, During 2009-2010, 112 X-35 anti-ship missiles were delivered. ,,


,, In 1999, Ukraine handed over to Russia 575 Kh-55 and Kh-55SM missiles as payment for the supply of natural gas.

In the Russian Air Force, all DA forces are united in the 37th VA. In its composition by July 2001. there were 63 Tu-95MS aircraft with 504 Kh-55 missiles listed behind them, as well as 15 Tu-160. ,,

And from the Kyrgyz Republic, we have p-800 Onyx, p-120 Malachite, p-270 Mosquito, p-15 Termit, Kh-101,102, P-1000 Vulcan. Carriers from submarines to strategic aviation.

Do you think we didn't have 2012 KR for 300? Or is the MO lying about an increase of 37 times?

[Grigory_45]

We read the text of the article:

Russian arsenal long-range cruise missiles has grown tenfold

Speech about RCC does not come from the word at all.

[set of sets]

If we talk about long-range, then the INF Treaty included missiles with a range of up to 5500 km. So Calibers are also not included in this number.
Or most likely the article talks about both. That is, the long range is tens of times, and the CD is 37 times.
And by the way, anti-ship missiles also belong to the class of cruise missiles.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: set of sets

then the INF Treaty included missiles with a range of up to 5500 km. So Calibers are also not included in this number.

what does the DRMSD have to do with it, if it concerns only land-based missiles??

[Grigory_45]

Quote: set of sets

Or is the MO lying about an increase of 37 times?

probably not lying. But does not name the starting point. In the same way, Shoigu is not lying, annually reporting to the president (that is, supreme) about the number of KRs supplied. And never in the annual report there were hundreds of them.

[set of sets]

The report always contains underestimated data. Or most likely 2 options. One for the media, one for the president.

[set of sets]

"Are you tired of fantasizing?"

There is such a thing as a military secret. And the number of practically any type of weapons is kept in secret. Take planes, helicopters, tanks, and even more so missiles. Indeed, at the moment, rockets are the main argument and projection of force.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: set of sets

And the number of practically any type of weapons is kept in secret. Take at least planes, helicopters, tanks, and even more so missiles

you will be surprised, but no longer. The quantity is not a secret. Even missiles. Even ICBMs and warheads (much more is known about them than for the CD).

[set of sets]

This is why all these reports exist, to pretend that everything is open with us. We seem to be hiding nothing.
Even this article speaks in a veiled way. Why, since no one is hiding anything, not announce the exact data on the CD? It's not difficult at all.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: set of sets

Even this article speaks in disguise

the article does not say anything at all.

The facts are that the production facilities of the Russian Federation are not capable of producing several thousand KR in 8 years. This I am still silent about funding. I hope you are aware that the CD is not a cheap thing?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: set of sets

Why, since no one is hiding anything, not announce the exact data on the CD? It's not difficult at all

that's it. Why? Question to MO. I'm sure they know how many CDs of all types they have. Maybe the absolute numbers are not as impressive as "37 times"?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: set of sets

Indeed, at the moment, missiles are the main argument and projection of force

not only them. But let's say. Well, how, will the enemy be afraid if he does not know how much "boNb" you have? What if there is only one, and you "bend" show-off?

[set of sets]

“To varying degrees, the factor of surprise is present in all battles, battles and military campaigns conducted by Suvorov. The essence of surprise lies primarily in innovation, in the unexpected for the enemy use of new tactical means of struggle or unusual methods and techniques of warfare, the absence of a template in them. A.V. Suvorov went down in military history precisely as an innovative commander, a bearer of advanced Russian military thought, many of the principles of military art of which were ahead of their time and were incomprehensible to his opponents. To beat the enemy with what he does not have, "surprise-win" - this is one of Suvorov's mottos. ,,

In the event of a real war, we will surprise the enemy with the number of weapons that he did not know about. And that means we will win.

[Grigory_45]

You were carried somewhere to the wrong steppe, for your military leadership.

Quote: set of sets

In the event of a real war, we will surprise the enemy

Everyone lies, of course, that does not concern strategic weapons (they are bound by treaties), but not on such a scale. In intelligence, too, they do not eat soup with bast shoes, they scrupulously study the military, technological, economic, and production potential of a potential enemy. In our time of rapid development of technical means of intelligence and the media, it is extremely difficult to hide anything. Even the Chinese do not succeed, with their mania to keep everything and everyone secret

[set of sets]

Accurate intelligence is documents, not guesses like mine. And getting documents is not so easy. At military-industrial complex plants, the local network is not connected to the Internet, so hacking is impossible. Here recruitment is needed, and this is treason and a considerable period. In general, everything is not so simple.


Well, and besides, our potential opponents greatly underestimate us.

[Grigory_45]

In intelligence, not only and not so much spies, but also analysts who, by many bits of information, make up a single, very reliable whole. To calculate with a high probability how many missiles the enemy has (especially when he himself does not hide it much), you do not need to introduce a mole.

[set of sets]

There are analysts for everyone. But no matter how accurate it is, it is still just a high-level like. Apparently, our MO is counting on these analysts.

And for example, what's the point to indicate that 50 missiles arrived instead of the real 55? It's another matter if there are 155 real ones, then there is a sense. And then let these analysts count.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: set of sets

Well, and besides, our potential opponents greatly underestimate us.

How do you know this?

[Ugochaves]

Quote: Sidor Amenpodestovich

And what?

Literate?

[Sergey Kulikov_3]

Who is against the 37-fold increase in the number of missiles? Break down! Time! Two! Shoot!
Where is Katz?
I do not want! I won't!
Set aside. Katz doesn't want ...

[digitalcn75]

How many times has the nose grown?

[Pavel57]

And how are things with the RCC?

[Old26]

Quote: Temples

If eight years ago there was one carrier, then an increase of 13 times is 13 carriers.
Bravo!
Does the Ministry of Defense show such arithmetic to the Supreme?
Or is it that they treat the population as suckers?
It is better to be silent than to shout about an increase in tens of times, there is a chance to pass for smart.

This, namesake, is common juggling numberswhen given a "relative" value rather than an "absolute". And so it turns out: the number of missiles has increased 37 times, the number of carriers has increased 13 ...

Quote: krot

Not bad. If in 2010 there were at least 100 cruise missiles, now there are 3700. It is quite normal.

And if there were 10? It is rare when I agree with comrade Khramov, but in this case he is right for all 1000%. All these reports in relative terms are not worth a damn, if not, the initial or final figure

Quote: Svetlana

compared to what?
...
beginning of the article: They note that for the period from 2012 on 2020 year.

Read slowly, with an arrangement, and then there will be fewer questions. Or the questions will be completely different. And the number and
minimum assortment are labeled "for official use". Eo most likely under "Top Secret"

In order to know the numbers, you just need to keep track of the days of a single military acceptance, that's all. I can say that for 2 years, EMNIP 2017-2018 annually produced about 100 cruise missiles "Caliber" (though without specifying the type). So it is unlikely that such figures even go like particle board.

Quote: YOUR

At the moment Tomahawk 7300, production continues. For other CDs - AGM-86 is currently more than 1500 units, AGM-129 ACM under 1000, AGM-158 JASSM - more than 2000.
These are only those with a flight range of 2000 km and more.
Why do you belittle the numbers like that?

Perhaps you should correct the numbers.
The number of "Tomahawks" at 7300 is the total number issued for all time. Something was dismantled under the contract, something was used in wars, ranging from "Desert Storm". Something additionally purchased
As for the AGM-86V missiles. They were originally released 1715 units. Then some of them were converted into modifications C and D. For 2012, there were about 1142 modification B missiles with a range of 2500 km in the United States. At the beginning of 2020, there are 528 of them left.
The AGM-129 missiles were all dismantled in 2012. Now they are not in the US Air Force.
The AGM-158 missile never had a range of 2000 km. The AGM-158А JASSM model had a range of 370 km, the AGM-158В JASSM-ER model - 960-980 km. Although they were actually built 2000 units

Quote: Hermit21

Cut the sturgeon, for the entire fleet there are about 2000 Tomahawks, nuclear AGM-86 300, non-nuclear ones were removed from service. If you add JASSM-ER, there will be more

I will not count Tomahawks in the navy, this is a thankless job (how to count if, for example, in the universal version on the Burke there are 8 Tomahawks, and in the shock version - 56.
But inaccuracy crept into your numbers. "There are much more tomahawks in the fleet, about 4600 units. About 86 non-nuclear AGM-700C / B were created. How many are left now, I don’t know. Nuclear AGM-86B remained, according to various estimates, from 300 to 528. I tend to 300, i.e. Because there was information that almost a third of the American "nuclear" B-52Hs are capable of carrying a full load of these missiles. The rest of them simply do not have enough. Of course, if you add JASSM-ER, it will be 750 more.

Quote: YOUR

You were right to notice that we speak only Tomahawks, and there are others. For example: AGM-86 of which there are currently more than 1500 units, AGM-129 ACM under 1000, AGM-158 JASSM - more than 2000.
These are only those with a flight range of 2000 km and more.
Well, the well-known Tomahawk - of which 7500 were produced and production continues. Those. At present the Americans have more than 12 thousand cruise missiles with a range of more than 2000 km.
How many do we have? And in our country their number has increased 37 times, but in absolute numbers, how much?

I already wrote that your numbers do not correspond to reality. The USA has about 86-300 AGM-528V (it makes no sense to count other modifications, because they have a range of 1200 km, AGM-129 does not have ANY one, AGM-158 JASSM - indeed more than 2000, but they have a range from 370 to 980 km. So it will not work either.
Tomahawks were actually produced according to various estimates from 7300 to 7500 units. But do not forget that they were spent for the following purposes
• Tests - about 101
• Dismantled nuclear naval and land "Tomahawks" - approximately 830
• "Desert Storm" - 297
• "Decisive Force" - 13
• "Strike in the Desert" - 44
• "Desert Fox" - 370
• Strikes on Yugoslavia - over 700
• Iraq 2003 (second Gulf War) - minimum 40
• Strikes against Libya - 200
• Strikes on Syria - 165
In total, if we add up all these figures, it turns out that the US now has from 4540 to 4740 Tomahawk missiles (all non-nuclear)

[lucul]

All these reports in relative terms are not worth a damn, if not, the initial or final figure.

It remains to sell these "non-existent" missiles to Iran, they do not exist in your opinion, so why worry)))

[Erik]

Quote: Cron

Quote: Temples

Apparently you are about protecting the personal property of these guys economists?

You like to round things up, not thirty years, but less. During part of this period, your liberal trash has caused so much damage that the echoes of that bacchanalia will be heard for a long time

How are you feeling? What are the liberals? The main liberal in the Kremlin! And the man whom you unwisely managed to call a liberal pointed to the oligarchy! On the bourgeois nature of this country! Capitalism, it is! Are you ideological? Or 15 rubles? What is there, you have to be patient? Left turn? Putin is building the USSR 2.0? A multi-port?

[lucul]

How are you feeling? What are the liberals? The main liberal in the Kremlin! And the man whom you unwisely managed to call a liberal pointed to the oligarchy! On the bourgeois nature of this country! Capitalism, it is! Are you ideological? Or 15 rubles? What is there, you have to be patient? Left turn? Putin is building the USSR 2.0? A multi-port?

How is it? Have you filled many shekels with posts today? ))))

[Old26]

Quote: Pavel57

And how are things with the RCC?

By memory. On one of the single days of military acceptance, the figure for the year was announced. EMNIP - 96 or 100 missiles of the 3M14 type and 8 missiles 3M54 (anti-ship missiles). On one of the six-month days, the figure of 34 or 37 Onyx anti-ship missiles was announced. So, something like this could be in one of the years

[Erik]

Quote: lucul

How are you feeling? What are the liberals? The main liberal in the Kremlin! And the man whom you unwisely managed to call a liberal pointed to the oligarchy! On the bourgeois nature of this country! Capitalism, it is! Are you ideological? Or 15 rubles? What is there, you have to be patient? Left turn? Putin is building the USSR 2.0? A multi-port?

How is it? Have you filled many shekels with posts today? ))))

I don’t know, I’m ideological! Like my ancestors, and the ancestors defeated fascism! As well as those who stood at the origins of the state that defeated fascism!

[Motorhead]

Si vis pacem, para bellum ....
Why be surprised then.

[Federal1]

Yes, it's okay to post such heresy. Tradition from the memoirs of generals .. the production of tank shells has grown, 100, 1000 times, etc., say what to fart in a puddle)

[zwlad]

A transparent hint to "partners" from the RF Ministry of Defense.

[Old26]

Quote: lucul

All these reports in relative terms are not worth a damn, if not, the initial or final figure.

It remains to sell these "non-existent" missiles to Iran, they do not exist in your opinion, so why worry)))

Do not distort my words. I said what I said. That the statements that the number of carriers has grown 13 times, and the number of CDs in 37 as information is not worth a damn. One of the rules for working with information says: the numbers must be comparable. There is NOTHING to measure them in information. It would be said that in 2012 there were, for example, 101 carriers of the KR "Caliber" and X-5, now one could say that there are 65 of them and their number has increased 13 times. It's the same with the missiles themselves. How many were in 2012? 0, 1 or 10? The value of such information is almost nil. These figures are only good for reporting to someone and somewhere. Most often, to someone who knows the initial numbers. Such information does not matter to us.

[Bi-mac]

This topic (the ratio of the number of missiles) has already been discussed more than once. And among all the comments came across such (IMHO sane) - you can not compare the ONE-TIME launch of all THEIR cruise missiles and all OUR (here we are losing essno). It is important to have an advantage in the range, that is, within 1-2 thousand km from the border. And for this, it will be necessary to fit not 5-10 aircraft or ships, but ten times more. And this approach by our military will be perceived unequivocally as preparation for war. I don’t know for sure, of course, but I think our General Staff already has an algorithm of actions in this regard: 1. At what moment to warn the enemy and 2. At what moment and to which bases, airfields and ports to proactively launch our Caliber-Daggers-Iskander in order to nullify thousands of enemy missiles on the ground. After that, the balance of forces should level out a little.

[Bi-mac]

I'll add more. Remember the 300 Spartans? A thousand-fold superiority of the Persians at Thermopylae was held back for several days. In a hypothetical war (if we isolate only the scenario of an exchange of cruise missiles), the situation is somewhat similar.
The enemy fleet does not have many places to approach the borders of our country with impunity. The Black and Baltic Seas are well covered by coastal complexes, where enemy losses will be gigantic on the approaches. There are probably many holes from the Arctic, but there will also be fewer targets for attack. Relatively narrow corridors for attack are known in the Pacific Ocean - I think that ours calculated the necessary power of barrage fire there.
It's more difficult with planes, but I hope for our air defense. They seem to be showing success in the exercises.
Although, of course, it would be better to do without natural experiments with a real enemy (.

[Evil Booth]

from 10 to 40 ... nama. precise values ​​from experts from every iron. as usual.

[certero]

Quote: ROSS 42

In a good scenario, even if in 2012 there were only 10 “Caliber” missiles. The fact that there were 3 of them (namely, “Caliber”) cannot but rejoice ...

Did you definitely study at school?
Because 10 times 37 is 370 :)

[Kirill_Z]

In 2012, then-Minister of Defense Serdyukov announced the order for 2012 for 20 long-range cruise missiles. That is, it can be assumed that now there are at least 740 such missiles. And most likely there are more, since in the 55s, some (possibly small) number of nuclear missile X-555 was converted into the X-2012 version with a conventional warhead and in XNUMX they were already were in arsenals.