Military Review

Nuclear triad. Real horsemen of the Apocalypse

39

Photo: Russian Ministry of Defense


In the previous articles, we have already gone through the weakest component of nuclear forces, the strategic aviation, honored the strategic missile forces with their attention, and only now we have before us the real creators of the Apocalypse, who, do not bring, of course, can demolish the whole world.

Strategic missile submarines.

Perhaps this is really the quintessence of destruction and a masterpiece of human technical thought, aimed at destroying himself.

Why did the submarine missile carriers hit the first step of the triad pedestal? It's simple. The main trump card of the nuclear submarine is stealth and the associated invulnerability. A modern nuclear submarine is vulnerable in several positions: at the entrance to the base, at the exit from it, and during anchorage. Everything. The rest of the time, calmly being at a depth of 300 meters, the boat can feel completely calm.

Yes, engineers in countries that provide themselves with military equipment are constantly racking their brains over improving the means of detecting submarines. And other engineers are working to make the boats quieter and more invisible.

And in this competition, submarine designers win. There are plenty of examples of this, from the unpleasant numbers of Soviet submarines that surfaced in the middle of the orders of the American AUG, to the "sinking" of a Swedish diesel-electric submarine during maneuvers of an American aircraft carrier. By the way, the maneuvers showed the essence, since the attack of the boat was expected and the boat was searched for.

Well, the epic journey of the Boreyevs across half the world from the manufacturing plant to the Far East, when they were spotted entering the Golden Horn Bay - this is also a good indicator.

And now an unexpected turn.

In the second article on strategic bombers (link at the end), I complained about the fact that the oceans that separate North America from the world are a big obstacle in the way of aircraft, since floating boxes with aircraft, called aircraft carriers, can be placed in the oceans. And very much complicate, if not disrupt at all, the work of strategists.

But in our case, the oceans are the curse of the United States. The maritime border of the States is simply ugly huge and consists precisely of the ocean coast. Quiet, Atlantic, and the Arctic - and in general horror and sadness.


And where the Russian submarines can come from is not a question for the faint of heart. It is not for nothing that the States react so nervously (almost like the Swedes) to every appearance of our boats near their waters.

Indeed, there is nothing illegal and unnatural in the fact that the submarine is rummaging about its business in international waters. The negative point is when and where she came from to the point where she was found. And what were those who were supposed to detect it doing. So the Americans are freaking out. Moreover, it is quite reasonable.

We look at the map. The country is small, no matter how it looks. 4 x 2 thousand kilometers. Well, from the north it is covered by Canada. Another 2 thousand kilometers. For Bulav - about nothing. The range of more than 9 thousand km allows you to simply put points on the map.

But throwing rockets from great distances is not the best way to wipe out the foe from the face of the Earth. He will try his best to prevent this from happening. Track launches, use your missile defense and air defense, and so on.

This means that the closer the boat gets to the coast, the less chances the American military will have to react correctly.

Nuclear triad. Real horsemen of the Apocalypse

How should sailors feel at a base, say, in San Diego, that in California, if a thousand kilometers from the base, in the middle of the ocean, the Borei will betray everything it is rich in? In general, Americans today are very negative about such a prospect, and rightly so.

The point is that “a thousand kilometers from the base” is not a specific point. This is a hefty chunk of the ocean's surface. A haystack in which a very poisonous needle lurks. And this needle still has to be found.

Borea ICBMs are, of course, very serious, but who said that there could not be a more unpleasant situation?


Photo: Russian Ministry of Defense

And he can. From the same point (and it is possible from another), from a completely the same underwater position, through its torpedo tubes, "Ash-M" can release 10 "Calibers" in one salvo. And there can be up to four volleys. Yes, a cruise missile has one warhead, but it can also be very nuclear. And the flight range is also order.

"Caliber" - very accurate weapon... They can smash all missile defense / air defense systems into dust (radioactive), and then methodically play out the Apocalypse scenario using the R-30 from the Borea.

Absolutely all the same can be arranged by going from the North Pole through the Norwegian Sea from the bases of the North fleet.

In general, there are three options, and all of them are not very pleasant. The most unpleasant one is “hello” from the Arctic Ocean, where our people feel at home. This, of course, without the "Calibers", but on the other hand, with complete impunity, because the United States does not have icebreakers capable of escorting and escorting ships that could complicate the life of a submarine missile carrier. Yes, there are two icebreakers in the US Coast Guard, but you understand that, the situation does not greatly improve. The icebreakers are diesel electric and quite old.

In light of all that has been said, plans to build a sufficient number of Boreyev and Ash trees look very optimistic. Even taking into account the fact that the United States has quite decent missile defense and air defense systems, which, of course, will do everything possible to prevent a strike on their targets.

"Nuclear deterrence" is primarily a demonstration of force, which makes it clear to the enemy that he will be destroyed. The demonstration must be confident and frank. Not showing at parades. Parades are now a very unconvincing thing, as practice shows.

But the nuclear submarine, which surfaced not far from the border of the economic zone of another country and just calmly left at depth in an unknown direction - this is very indicative.

However, back to the Americans and the map.


In fact, it is much more difficult to get close to our country than to the United States. The Baltic is not a place for nuclear submarines at all. We cross out the Baltic at once.

The Black Sea is absolutely the same alignment, plus blocking the Bosphorus by the forces of the Black Sea Fleet can be quite calm and relaxed. And firing rockets from the Mediterranean Sea is already a completely different alignment. This is 2,5-3 thousand kilometers, there is not much time for preparation, but there is. That is, everything is pretty comfortable. And he adds to the arguments about the need for Russia to have its base in the Mediterranean with anti-submarine ships.

We do not consider the water area of ​​the Indian Ocean at all, because from 6 thousand kilometers. But it's safe, we're not there.

North. Everything seems to be fine here, you can approach a comfortable launch distance of 2,5 thousand kilometers from the Norwegian or Barents Sea. But the north is also ice, these are problems associated with the Northern Fleet of Russia, which, as I said, is doing well in this region, and I sincerely hope that it will feel even better.

In general, American sailors did not visit the ice fields of our North very often. This is really not the most convenient area for carrying out combat missions. Initially, the US Navy was divided into two groups, the Pacific and the Atlantic. There is no northern grouping capable of operating in those areas.

Well, we still have the Pacific Ocean, the vast expanses of which allow hundreds of submarines to get lost in them, not like a couple of dozen. To approach the enemy's territory by such a route, on which it will be unrealistic to notice the boat, because no state is able to block such spaces. For now, at least.

The whole problem for American submariners is that they will have absolutely no profit from this. The reason for this is not their preparation, but the length of our country. There is no point in launching missiles in Siberia and the Far East in any scenario of the Third World War, and as for the European part of Russia, there are already distances starting from 7,5 thousand kilometers.

And this is not entirely comfortable. This is at the limit of the action of the Trident-2 ICBM with a full load of warheads. Yes, if the number of warheads is reduced, then the range of the missile increases to 11 km, which is somehow not even serious. It's easier to shoot from a more comfortable area.

About the missiles themselves.

They have been compared so many times that it is unrealistic to add a new one.

For the Americans, the old Trident plays a major role in its second iteration.


Today, while the START-3 treaty is in effect, no more than 4 units can be installed on the Trident. In total, the rocket can accommodate either 8 W88 blocks with a capacity of 475 kt, or 12-14 W76 blocks (100 kt). Throw weight 2 800 kg.

Russian missiles.


Photo: Press Service of JSC "GRTs Makeeva"

R-29RMU2 Sineva can throw the same weight as Trident, the same 2 kg. 800 blocks of 4 kt or 500 blocks of 10 kt. Slightly, but inferior to the American rocket.


Shot from the plot of "Channel One"

The R-30 Bulava is frankly weaker. The throw weight is only 1 kg, hence the rocket can carry 150 blocks of 6 kt each.

Reliability - Trident is good. Out of 156 launches, 151 were successful. This is more than a significant indicator.

And the most important advantage of Trident-2 is its accuracy. The Americans, when necessary, know how to keep secrets, so the data on the CEP for the Trident is very evasive and has a spread from 90 to 500 m.

KVO near "Sineva" 250 m, near "Bulava" 120-350 m. Not worse than an American.

In general, if Russian SLBMs are inferior to the American one, it is very insignificant. If they are superior in something (it is difficult to judge due to the lack of information), then it is also not very strong. Here is parity, which can only be won by building new boats that are head and shoulders above the American ones.

The Ohio is not a young submarine in terms of development, but a very successful one. It is the great modernization potential that allowed the boats to serve from 1981 to the present.


And the big question is what will replace them. There are opinions that Columbia is a very promising project. True, and very expensive. But what is cheap today when it comes to security?

In the meantime, "Ohio" is the only competitor to "Borey" and "Ash", existing in two guises, and as SSBN, and as SSGN.

I did not specifically focus on the alterations of the Ohio strategist to the SSGN with Tomahawks, since I am of the opinion that the good old Block III Ax is not a competitor to Caliber at all. His reach to the target is very bad. How does his follower, Block IV, behave when trying to overcome the echeloned defense, consisting of serious complexes of the S-400 type with the support of electronic warfare ...

Most likely as sad as its predecessors.

Summing up, I would like to draw the following conclusion: the geographical position of the countries is such that our strategic missile carriers have a clear advantage when working on targets in the United States. The main problem for the Americans is that it will be difficult for them to approach the distance of "point blank" launch.

This gives rise to a second advantage for Russia. Despite the fact that the American Trident-2 missile appears to be stronger than the Bulava and Sineva, there is one thing that negates all the advantages. The "feature" of Russian missiles is the flat flight path, which gives a huge advantage, especially at small (for ballistic missiles) launch distances. Our missiles will be more difficult to shoot down in any case.

Number. Here, of course, the Americans have a double advantage. You can console yourself only by the fact that quantity is not always quality. And take it precisely by quality.

To make the work of American submariners as difficult as possible, we only need to make a few movements.

1. Base of anti-submarine and reconnaissance ships in the Mediterranean. Syria will do, especially since there is a base there.

2. Base of anti-submarine ships and submarines in the Indian Ocean. Cam Ranh is quite, especially since Vietnam does not mind at all.

3. Anti-submarine ships, aircraft and helicopters in sufficient numbers.

4. SSBNs of the "Borey" type with a quantity of at least 20-25 units in both fleets (Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet).

5. SSGN type "Ash" in the same quantities.

Yes, SUMS will be needed for this. But we have where to get them. There is where to save. For example, to stop all work on the so-called PAK DA project. Unpromising. Stop indulging the USC, which dreams of receiving one and a half trillion rubles for the creation of aircraft carriers. Unpromising. And so on, in our country money is thrown into the trash no worse than in the United States. But we will talk about this separately.

In fact, we are definitely not ready for the beginning of the Third World War. We still fly Soviet planes and sail Soviet ships and submarines. And almost 0 years have passed since the collapse of the USSR. It's just that the time has come when we need to start building our own in the quantities that are necessary for real, and not ceremonial, security.


And here a powerful submarine fleet (like the Soviet Union had) can play a crucial role in establishing parity and nuclear balance in the world.
Author:
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Thrifty
    Thrifty 31 May 2021 05: 01
    0
    The novel, the existing ICBMs, their KVOs are enough for the eyes to fulfill their goal - the complete destruction of a large city, or a strategically important industrial area. And, the "impossibility" of the boat to detect, here spears on this topic break constantly with varying degrees of success!
    1. SERGE ANT
      SERGE ANT 31 May 2021 05: 07
      -4
      Indeed, more than once it is possible to destroy all life on the planet with the available arsenal ...
      1. Shishkov
        Shishkov 31 May 2021 09: 06
        +7
        It is a myth. According to various estimates, in the region of 20% of the world's population, with the most sad scenario of events. Another part of the consequences - hunger, epidemics, and more. But not "all living things"
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Babay Atasovich
      Babay Atasovich 31 May 2021 05: 28
      -1
      And, the "impossibility" of the boat to detect, here spears on this topic break constantly with varying success!
      I also wanted to ask, tk. I follow the battles of the opponents of aircraft carriers: in the last "5 kopecks" on this issue, it was already mentioned that they say that submarines have been easily cut through since Soviet times. Then WHY CANNOT SUPER power it SIMPLY afford it and stop the impudent ascent of submarines of some regional power, in their waters ?! Worldwide has no need already?
  2. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 31 May 2021 05: 16
    +14
    The rest of the time, calmly being at a depth of 300 meters, the boat can feel completely calm.
    Taking into account the significant superiority of the United States in the number of nuclear submarines and the overwhelming superiority in the NATO ASW forces, this is "completely calm" from the category of good wishes.
  3. Ros 56
    Ros 56 31 May 2021 05: 38
    0
    It is interesting, but I do not see the role of air defense and missile defense, and their contribution to the country's defense is quite high.
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 31 May 2021 10: 36
      +2
      Quote: Ros 56
      Anti-missile defense, and their contribution to the country's defense is quite high

      And how will air defense help you against Trident and Minuteman warheads?
      And how will a missile defense system from several dozen interceptor missiles located in just one area help you when 1300 warheads approach?
  4. gorenina91
    gorenina91 31 May 2021 06: 44
    +4
    - Well, what does Russia have "in relation" to China ??? - Or there, if "something happens"; then everything will happen on land ??? - Most likely so ...
    - But China can easily strike literally "point blank" ... with a huge wide front ... - We are all waiting from somewhere overseas (which is also quite justified); and here, too, very close trouble may await ...
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 31 May 2021 17: 51
      0
      And he will receive in return the same and the same place.
      1. Grits
        Grits 1 June 2021 02: 43
        +2
        Quote: Ryusey
        And he will receive in return the same and the same place.

        The same - hardly. Unlike China, we do not have intermediate and shorter-range ballistic missiles
    2. Starley.ura
      Starley.ura 4 June 2021 19: 20
      -1
      Well, please read more about China, and then try to scare them. Back in the 70s, in the report of the Chinese intelligence services of the CPC Central Committee, based on the experience of operating Chinese and North Korean collective farms and artels on the territory of the USSR (I hope you heard about such, and the North Korean ones existed until the end of the USSR), they concluded that elementary survival in these territories is impossible without the friendly attitude of the locals, and even more so with a hostile one. Plus, with the friendship of China and Russia, it is impossible to blockade China. Take a tour of history and discover how the British brought China to its knees.
  5. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 31 May 2021 06: 47
    +19
    The article, from my point of view, and from the point of view of the latest data, to say the least, is not adequate. No.
    The bottom line is that in terms of high-quality ASW, the number of modern MPSS, the "partners" are so far ahead that the quietest place for SSBNs is just at the base. In case of war, the boats will not be able to enter the duty area, and if they do, they will destroyed.
    I have already said that an aircraft carrier is not a whim, but a necessary component to provide cover for the SSBN deployment area. The Soviet Union understood this and built aircraft carriers. Yes, the ice of the north can cover the boats from detection, but the total superiority of the enemy in the MAPL, when 2-3 Virginias will scour the area, guarantees the destruction of the “strategists” even before the ice saves from aviation.
    It is clear that Skomorokhov expresses his point of view, but the reality is much more complicated. And it lies in the fact that we are very lagging behind the West in the means of anti-aircraft missile defense, because this component of the triad, SSBNs, is the weakest link request Alas and ah, but it is so ...
    Personally, my point of view hi
    PS Either you are building socialism in the Stalinist way, when you really have money for the people from the people's natural resources for the development of your army, or you have capitalism and have a printing press that would stamp this very money on your Wishlist. In other cases, you can only dream and rant in kitchens about the uselessness of an aircraft carrier or about super-invisible "boreas" ...
    PPP. People, learn to think smile
    1. parma
      parma 31 May 2021 12: 52
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      The article, from my point of view, and from the point of view of the latest data, to say the least, is not adequate. No.
      The bottom line is that in terms of high-quality ASW, the number of modern MPSS, the "partners" are so far ahead that the quietest place for SSBNs is just at the base. In case of war, the boats will not be able to enter the duty area, and if they do, they will destroyed.
      I have already said that an aircraft carrier is not a whim, but a necessary component to provide cover for the SSBN deployment area. The Soviet Union understood this and built aircraft carriers. Yes, the ice of the north can cover the boats from detection, but the total superiority of the enemy in the MAPL, when 2-3 Virginias will scour the area, guarantees the destruction of the “strategists” even before the ice saves from aviation.
      It is clear that Skomorokhov expresses his point of view, but the reality is much more complicated. And it lies in the fact that we are very lagging behind the West in the means of anti-aircraft missile defense, because this component of the triad, SSBNs, is the weakest link request Alas and ah, but it is so ...
      Personally, my point of view hi
      PS Either you are building socialism in the Stalinist way, when you really have money for the people from the people's natural resources for the development of your army, or you have capitalism and have a printing press that would stamp this very money on your Wishlist. In other cases, you can only dream and rant in kitchens about the uselessness of an aircraft carrier or about super-invisible "boreas" ...
      PPP. People, learn to think smile

      The ice is wonderful, only recently there was information that we had no experience of surfacing in them ... the recent case is fiction and propaganda, because it was not a random place, but a specially researched and prepared from the surface for a very decent period of time. .. in other words, it is possible to hide in the ice, but to strike at them is a controversial issue, which, given the number and equipment of anti-submarine weapons of the USA and NATO (they will meet at the “other end” of the ice), does not give the most pleasant prospects ...
      It is also not correct to compare axes and calibers based on the experience of launching - the former were used against "Zulus" with weak air defense / missile defense, the latter were generally against "babakhs" even without such means ... but what can S-300/400/500 or patriots be able to do there against them - a big question, while there is no experience (although the United States has already dug into the S-300, and I think in the Turkish S-400 too, but we are not a patriot), only the assurances of the manufacturers ...
      PS: no, not everything is lost, but I'm afraid we are looking in the wrong direction ... we must look towards China, because we are not a rival (global) for the United States (no matter how sad), this place is actively occupied by China, and for battles for leadership he needs our resources and technology ...
      1. Ryusey
        Ryusey 31 May 2021 17: 56
        +1
        No way, for the battle for leadership, China needs us safe and sound, but not too developed.
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey 31 May 2021 17: 53
      0
      And they do not need it, reality scares them to diarrhea.
  6. mark1
    mark1 31 May 2021 06: 51
    0
    Well, in general, summing up:
    1. ICBMs - mine are outdated, it is necessary to abandon them and give priority to PGRK.
    Those. if we are taken by surprise (anything can happen in life), the bulk of ICBMs will be guaranteed to be destroyed (because we naturally won't have time to deploy)
    2.Strategic aviation - PAK YES, we don't need it, it's kind of muddy ...
    Those. now we are based on Soviet developments, they are, of course, cool, but time passes, the complexes gradually cease to meet the requirements of the time, and physically copies are outdated and written off. Lack of renewal is the death of strategic aviation.
    3.PLARB - our everything, we will defeat everyone, we will soak everyone ... You need to leave them, well, almost like the Americans and even "better" (they do not refuse the triad)
    But ... we are limited to the launch areas, in order to expand them we need support forces (the same surface fleet. And not weak!) And the pleasure itself is dubious (if you do not know the measure). we plan to get it by practically destroying other parts of the triad or something else important for the country.
    Conclusion - a balance is needed (not zero for someone), balance is very important, only if it is observed, the triads will be able to cover and complement each other. Americans, by the way, understand this very well.
    1. vch62388
      vch62388 31 May 2021 13: 04
      +1
      1.1 We need a balance between heavy silos of the OS (maybe with "Vanguards", etc.) and light PGRK. The first, roughly - 5-10 minute readiness for launch and huge throwing weight. The latter are more expensive, lighter, but may be less vulnerable (if you're lucky).
      1.2 The first massive launch of an adversary leads to a retaliatory mass launch, it makes sense to shoot at ICBM positions if they are empty. The means of high-speed reloading of mines were discussed back in OSV-2 and at the moment they are absent as a class for everyone. Those. the mines are disposable, to supply missiles from the arsenal, prepare, load and reapply, in my opinion, unrealizable optimism. Thus, silos from the list of priority targets can be safely thrown out. Warheads, which are already not a carriage, are more logical to use for more important purposes than empty wells.
      2.1 Strategic aviation is needed to complete the victory (but how else?) Over the foe. If we assume that the CD will reach the targets a few hours after the start of the general ..., then they will just get the lot of finishing off the ICBM and aviation bases.
      3.1 SSBN, of course, is great, but the accuracy is lower, and if the enemy manages to somehow disable all GLONASS and NAVSTARs, then it is absolutely bad. IMHO thus SLBM - the last argument of the kings.
      Thus, in our conditions, heavy silo ICBMs with a large throw weight and a short reaction time rule.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 31 May 2021 23: 15
        +4
        Quote: vch62388
        The SSBN, of course, is great, but the accuracy is lower, and if the enemy somehow manages to turn off all sorts of GLONASS and NAVSTARs, then it's really bad.

        What are you !? Oh how !!! fellow Disabled GPS or our GLONASS - and a skiff?
        Well, then "turn off" the stars to deprive SLBMs of astrocorrection! bully
        1. vch62388
          vch62388 2 June 2021 12: 07
          +1
          I agree, I did not take it into account. I got excited. But everything is the same, the groundmen will be more precise. And faster.
  7. cost 75
    cost 75 31 May 2021 07: 00
    +4
    The states can safely launch missiles into the European part of Russia from the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean Sea, from over Norway. The extra 1000 km does not matter. We only cover Moscow about.
  8. smaug78
    smaug78 31 May 2021 08: 14
    +12
    The weakest article ... Some of the author's fantasies ...
    1. Name Surname
      Name Surname 31 May 2021 08: 50
      0
      In-in)) where did that come from
  9. Boris55
    Boris55 31 May 2021 08: 48
    -12%
    Quote: R. Skomorokhov
    Nuclear triad. Real horsemen of the Apocalypse

    And the fourth - who? Horsemen of the apocalypse - four.



    Quote: R. Skomorokhov
    And here a powerful submarine fleet (like the Soviet Union had) can play a crucial role in establishing parity and nuclear balance in the world.

    Not parity has already been set, but undeniable superiority our armed forces over the entire Western coalition, including the United States. As for the economy, everyone knows that the "economic miracle" of the US is based on the superiority of the military component, which guarantees the smooth operation of the printing press and the prosperity of the dollar. Today, the dollar no longer has such a guarantee.

    It is for this reason that Biden requested a meeting with Putin. The United States is changing tactics. The power component is no longer working, further economic sanctions are already meaningless and with their further introduction, the sanctions themselves will suffer more.

    The West (USA) is moving to the phase of "cultural cooperation", which means that the West will give up all its forces and use the fifth column for all 150% to carry out activities aimed at undermining the stability of the government (state). In the last century, they succeeded twice. I hope we have learned our lessons and will not be led to "jintsy, friendship, chewing gum" again.

    ps
    About who has a better economy on his toes.
    Task:
    There are two collective farms and both of them raise cows for milk. One has more milk, while the other has less, but the one who has more always lacks hay and takes it from the one who has less milk.
    Question.
    What will happen to the milk yield on both collective farms if the collective farm that lags behind stops supplying hay to the "leader" and uses him in its own interests?
    Reply.
    The "leader" will have to let the herd go for hamburgers, and on the lagging collective farm, the milk yield will increase significantly.
    1. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin 31 May 2021 11: 58
      0
      There are five of them, just Petrov and Boshirov ride the same horse)))
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey 31 May 2021 17: 59
      +1
      this makes no sense
    3. Grits
      Grits 1 June 2021 08: 42
      -3
      Quote: Boris55
      And the fourth - who? Horsemen of the apocalypse - four.

      We have it - Poseidons, which are guaranteed to fatally infect the coastal area to a state of quiet horror.
      They have spaceplanes that calmly and with impunity drop small Hiroshimkas on our large cities, causing general chaos
    4. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 1 June 2021 13: 05
      +3
      Not parity has already been established, but the indisputable superiority of our armed forces over the entire Western coalition, including the United States.


      Miracle, but in numbers you do not want to voice this undeniable superiority?
  10. Name Surname
    Name Surname 31 May 2021 08: 48
    +3
    A very patriotic article
  11. Shishkov
    Shishkov 31 May 2021 09: 27
    +8
    Skomorokhov's articles about our Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy boil down to a number of elementary theses. Here they are: 1. Mine ICBMs and long-range bombers - atavism. 2. The best place for an ICBM is underwater. 3. Aircraft carriers are unnecessary, and even harmful. SSBNs do not need cover.
    When there are not enough facts for argumentation (and they are constantly lacking), the author actively uses classical techniques of a demagogue, such as “being calmly at a depth of 300 meters, the boat can feel completely calm”. Do you feel, huh? Two times "calmly"!
    Each of the promoted theses individually could be stupidity and sincere delusion. Together, they are very similar to sabotage and an attempt to launch a line into public space that is dangerous for the defense of the Motherland.
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 31 May 2021 14: 59
      +7
      Quote: Shishkov

      Each of the promoted theses individually could be stupidity and sincere delusion. Together, they are very similar to sabotage and an attempt to launch a line into public space that is dangerous for the defense of the Motherland.


      Exactly.
      The ideal term for defining the Romanov articles is Nonsense!
  12. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 31 May 2021 10: 38
    +10
    So what?
    The author is well done.
    Cheerfully put it that way.
    Joy to the soul.
    If not for reading the articles of his opponents, who told how it really is.
  13. bk0010
    bk0010 31 May 2021 12: 04
    +6
    And almost 0 years have passed since the collapse of the USSR.
    Much more.
  14. SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 31 May 2021 14: 54
    +11
    Oh, hit-bang ...
    And it is precisely Roman Skomorokhov who writes this nonsense?
    I have a feeling that some alternative retyloids, such as the Operator or Romario Agro or Hrych, "seized the brain" of Roman ...


    The rest of the time, calmly being at a depth of 300 meters, the boat can feel completely calm.


    Well, yes, the enemies do not have about 60-70 nuclear submarines, whose main task is to defend their country from a nuclear strike. Accordingly, they try to control the location of our SSBNs day and night.
    And then, the number of contacts between our SSBNs and foreign submarines, the number of collisions - makes it clear that they have everything under control.
    Simply due to the fact that there are almost ten times more enemies.
    This is not counting the fleets and PLO aircraft. There, the ratio will generally be devastating.

    this is "hello" from the Arctic Ocean, where our people feel at home.


    Well yes. 20+ years of ICEX ice drills at our enemies. With shooting under the ice. A bunch of enemy boats in the Barents Sea, do you think they stop pursuing SSBNs as soon as ice appears on the horizon?

    But the nuclear submarine, which surfaced not far from the border of the economic zone of another country and just calmly left at depth in an unknown direction - this is very indicative.

    Are you talking about a loaf that has surfaced because it could not shoot?
    Have you watched the ascent point?
    He was closer to Chukotka than to Alaska ... But the uryakalka do not need anything, Alaska, America ... A new order and a new cap ...

    The whole problem for American submariners is that they will have absolutely no profit from this. The reason for this is not their preparation, but the length of our country. There is no point in launching missiles in Siberia and the Far East in any scenario of the Third World War, and as for the European part of Russia, there are already distances starting from 7,5 thousand kilometers.


    Strange, but from the waters of the Sea of ​​Japan to Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk - it is quite possible to shoot along a flat trajectory. The rocket will arrive very quickly.
    Across Omsk, Novosibirsk - from the Barents Sea

    In the meantime, "Ohio" is the only competitor to "Borey" and "Ash", existing in two guises, and as SSBN, and as SSGN.

    Those. English Vanguards and Astyutes, French Triomfans - does he not count as competitors?


    good old Block III Ax is not a competitor to Caliber at all. His reach to the target is very bad.


    And how many Calibers fell in Iran / Iraq / Syria?
    If we compare the percentage - it seems to me - everything will be on the same level ...


    The "feature" of Russian missiles is the flat flight path, which gives a huge advantage, especially at small (for ballistic missiles) launch distances. Our missiles will be more difficult to shoot down in any case.


    Those. do you think that Trident and M51 do not know how? You are deeply mistaken.

    In general, so.
    Another article by Roman, which is written from agitation. It has nothing to do with reality, common sense, knowledge at least at an embryonic level.
    A bunch of just erroneous opinions and conclusions.

    Output.
    Previously, Roman was different.
    Completely different.
    This means that other people are scribbling texts under his name.
    Reptilians. ^)))
  15. CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 31 May 2021 16: 49
    +3
    The article is overwhelmingly optimistic.
    Brother quality quantity kas. A nuclear submarine from the United States is not received. Now and then on their side. Plus, the US has a huge advantage in PLO power.
  16. Ryusey
    Ryusey 31 May 2021 17: 08
    +6
    "Why did the submarine missile carriers hit the first step of the triad's pedestal? It's simple. The main trump card of the nuclear submarine is stealth and the associated invulnerability. A modern nuclear submarine is vulnerable in several positions: at the entrance to the base, at the exit from it and during anchorage. That's all. The rest of the time, calmly being at a depth of 300 meters, the boat can feel completely calm ... "- after that, this nonsense of an inflamed consciousness can not be read.
    Probably it would be nice if the author at least once visited the SSBN, at the moment when it is covered with sonars, but who will let it go there.
  17. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 31 May 2021 23: 13
    -3
    excellent article, you need to develop nuclear submarines, and you need to transfer the entire surface fleet of the first second rank to the Northern Fleet and Kamchatka
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 1 June 2021 13: 06
      +2
      But what about the enemy's anti-submarine capabilities, and Vladimir? You don't ignore them, and in a real war you cannot ignore them.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 1 June 2021 22: 52
        -3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        But what about the enemy's anti-submarine capabilities, and Vladimir? You don't ignore them, and in a real war you cannot ignore them.

        you dear Alexander got your finger in the sky ... I do not ignore the enemy's PLO, but unlike you 1) I propose to strengthen Kamchatka and the Northern Fleet by means of suppressing enemy ASW, namely to develop underwater tracking systems, SSNNS, coastal aviation and our ships (corvettes frigates ) ASW, which are useless on the seas but are needed around nuclear submarine bases within a radius of 1000-3000 km 2) I do not panic and I realize that enemy ASW weapons have limitations, detection range and weather conditions, and therefore the enemy is not yet able to fully control the Arctic , Pacific and Atlantic Oceans tongue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTMzK306-j4
  18. Alien From
    Alien From 1 June 2021 10: 47
    0
    The article is complete nonsense! I generally keep quiet about grammar ..... level below school!