Military Review

"Rotten" US nuclear warheads

213

The last exchange of data on the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States took place in early 2021. According to information published in open sources, in Russia at that time there were 517 ICBMs, ballistic missiles on submarines and heavy bombers, and the USA had 651. In Russia, 1 warheads were deployed on strategic carriers, in the USA, 456.


In total, the United States has approximately 5 nuclear warheads, most of which are not deployed - in storage, or awaiting disposal. Also in service are tactical aviation nuclear bombs (approximately 220 units) for fighter-bombers.

Experts specialized in nuclear weapons, believe that the United States has accumulated more than 100 tons of plutonium, which is enough to create tens of thousands of charges. Since 2019, 4–5 plutonium assemblies have been produced annually.

From 2024, it is planned to release at least 10 new assemblies per year, and from 2026, it is planned to release at least 30.

Thus, the assembly of approximately 2030 new warheads is foreseen by 140.

Aviation nuclear bombs


"Rotten" US nuclear warheads

The most numerous of the thermonuclear free-fall aviation bombs in the American nuclear arsenal are the B61 family bombs.

The bomb was created by the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and from the very beginning was considered as a unified aviation nuclear weapon of low and medium power, tactical and strategic purpose. Its mass production began in 1967.

Initially, it was a fairly perfect design, and over the years, the technical and technological part of the bombs has changed little. The main design changes are aimed at increasing the level of reliability and safety.

At present, free-falling nuclear bombs of the B61 family have practically ousted all other models in the US Air Force.

The bomb is 3,58 m long and 0,33 m in diameter and consists of several parts. The nose cone contains the control electronics. Behind it is a compartment with a charge, which looks like a metal cylinder. Then another compartment with electronics and power supplies. In the tail section, equipped with stabilizers, a parachute is placed, designed to slow down the speed of the fall, so that the plane that dropped the bomb can safely escape.

The weight of most B61 is within 330 kg, but may vary depending on the specific modification.

B61 bomb at different stages of assembly

More than half a century has passed since the start of operation of the first model B61-0.

Since then, 9 serial modifications have appeared and a total of more than 3 nuclear bombs of this type have been collected, which entered service with tactical and strategic aviation.


A feature of the B61 is the ability to change the power level of the charge before combat use, depending on the type of target and the tactical situation.

The maximum yield of bombs belonging to this family is within 340 kt.

In all modifications of the B61, the Teller-Ulam scheme is used, which triggers the reaction of thermonuclear synthesis of light elements into heavier ones, in which a huge amount of energy is released. Although during the field tests of the first American thermonuclear explosive devices, the reaction of liquid deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen) was used, such an ammunition is not very convenient for combat use and storage.

In this regard, in all the charges in service, solid lithium-6 deuteride is used as a thermonuclear fuel, which stores deuterium in it at positive temperatures.

To start a thermonuclear reaction, a nuclear detonator (trigger) is used, the task of which is to create the necessary initial conditions - high temperature and pressure. The trigger is a small plutonium charge.

Lithium-6 deuteride is contained in a special "nuclear container" made of a high-density material (Uranium-238 or lead) coated with boron compounds to protect the contents from premature heating by a neutron flux. A nuclear trigger is located strictly along the longitudinal axis of the "thermonuclear container". After assembling the product, the internal space is filled with a special compound, which ensures reliable fixation of the elements of the thermonuclear charge.


After the start of a chain reaction of fission, a high-temperature plasma is formed in the plutonium core, which, under high pressure, acts on the contents of the container. In the course of fission of plutonium nuclei, a neutron flux is created, which, interacting with the nuclei of lithium-6, releases tritium. It already interacts with deuterium and a thermonuclear fusion reaction begins, releasing the main energy of the explosion.

Before detonation, a small amount (about 3–6 g) of thermonuclear fuel is pumped into the center of the hollow assembly. By varying the content of the gas mixture in the charge, it is possible to regulate the explosion power over a wide range.

At the moment, of the nine serial modifications of the B61, there are four "hot" versions in the nuclear cellars of the advanced air bases: B61-3, B61-4, B61-7, B61-11. B61-10 bombs are in reserve.

After the end of the Cold War, the 11th and 12th modifications were created.

The B61-3 bomb, put into service in 1979, has a stepped power adjustment in the range of 0,3, 1,5, 60 or 170 kt. It is designed for tactical aircraft.

The B61-4 tactical thermonuclear bomb appeared shortly after the B61-3. Its energy release can be adjusted in the range: 0,3, 1,5, 10 or 45 kt.

The B61-7 bomb, created by conversion from the B61-1 in the late 1980s, was originally intended for strategic bombers. Its power is adjustable from 10 to 340 kt.

The B61-10 bomb, intended for suspension under fighter-bombers, was created in the late 1980s on the basis of the W85 warhead from the Pershing II MRBM. Possibility of stepwise adjustment of the explosion power: 0,3, 5, 10 or 80 kt.

The B61-11 bomb was put into service in 1997 and is part of the arsenal of long-range bombers. She is the heaviest in the family and weighs 540 kg. The greater weight of the 11th modification compared to earlier ones is explained by the more durable and thicker body of the bomb, specially designed to destroy well-fortified underground bunkers. This bomb is designed to detonate with a delay after burying several meters into solid ground. In total, about 50 B61-11 bombs were collected. B61-7 bomb warheads were used to create this model.

In the comment to the publication "Powerlessness" of the US nuclear industry one very "patriotic" but not well informed reader literally stated the following (punctuation and spelling preserved):

That is, they are modernizing the weapons of the 60s - and what is the use of these free-fall bombs in modern warfare - the carrier will need to enter the air defense zone of action.

So, the B61-12 bomb (B61 Mod 12) is not a "weapon of the 1960s", but is a very perfect and technologically advanced model, created in an evolutionary way on the basis of early modifications of the B61 thermonuclear bombs.

To be fair, it must be said that Russia is also not going to give up aviation atomic bombs, which are an important component in the arsenal of our military aviation. We do not consider them "outdated".

When the new B61-12 was adopted, there was no question of increasing the number of American atomic bombs. The designers of the B61-12 set the goal to reduce the cost of maintenance, maintenance and create a "special" unified aviation ammunition, designed to eventually replace all nuclear bombs of this family.

B61-12 became the first guided nuclear bomb. Depending on the combat situation, it is proposed to use an inertial or guidance system similar to JDAM.


The new tail section contains navigation instruments and an autopilot capable of tracking the trajectory of the product and issuing commands to the steering cars. It is possible to change the power of the explosion using the bomb's own controls.


After separating the bomb from the carrier flying at high altitude with a transonic speed, a flight range of up to 120 km, greater efficiency and "surgical" accuracy are provided with a lower charge power.

An air blast of B61-12 produces much less radionuclides than the B61-7 bomb. However, to hit well-protected targets, such as silo launchers or underground command posts, the explosion can be made after touching the ground or burying it.


According to available data, when using a satellite navigation system, the CEP of a bomb is no more than 30 m. An underground explosion with a capacity of 50 kt, produced at a depth of 7-10 m, is equivalent in destructive effect to an air explosion with a yield of 750 kt.

Discharge of the inert version of the B61-12 bomb during testing

A number of unauthorized sources claim that in the B61-12 bomb, only a 0,3 kt plutonium trigger from the early B61 modifications will be used to hit targets. However, this is highly unlikely and meaningless. The US nuclear industry, taking into account the previously accumulated reserves of lithium-6 deuteride, is quite capable of ensuring the reloading of all aerial bombs.

According to information published in the United States, the power of the B61-12 bomb in TNT equivalent will be stepwise adjusted within the range: 0,3, 1,5, 10 and 50 kt.


In total, up to 61 previously released bombs of the B12 family can be converted into the B400-61 modification.

The cost of converting one bomb is estimated at approximately $ 28 million.

The practical implementation of the program will start in 2022. The service life of B61-12 bombs should be at least 20 years.

At the first stage, it is planned to convert thermonuclear bombs B61-3, B61-4, B61-7 and B61-10.

Thus, we are talking not only about tactical bombs, but also about those intended for strategic carriers. At the same time, relatively fresh B61-11 will operate in its original form.

However, the line between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons is rather arbitrary. Tactical fighter-bombers or carrier-based aircraft are quite capable of solving strategic tasks.

In addition to the B61-7 and B61-11 bombs, the B83-1 thermonuclear bombs are in the arsenal of American strategic bombers.

Thermonuclear bomb В83

The B83 thermonuclear bomb was created by the Livermore National Lorenz Laboratory. Its serial production began in 1983, and a total of 650 bombs were fired. B83 bombs were replaced in strategic bombers: B28, B43 and B53.

The B83 bomb was the first American nuclear weapon to use fire-insensitive explosives. According to American sources, it can stay in burning kerosene for several hours.

The bomb's curb weight is 1 kg. Length - 088 m.Diameter - 3,7 m.

At present, the B83 is the only American thermonuclear ammunition of the megaton class, its maximum yield is 1,2 Mt. It is the most powerful weapon in the US nuclear arsenal.

It is stated that the power of the B83 explosion can be regulated, but it is not disclosed to what extent.


The highlight of the B83 is the possibility of supersonic bombing (up to 1,4 M) against heavily fortified targets (ICBM silos, bunkers). The bomb was designed from the very beginning to hit hard on reinforced concrete surfaces.

For this, it has a powerful steel hull, divided by three internal bulkheads. The bomb is equipped with a hollow shock-absorbing steel tip with concentric crush rings to prevent ricochet or slip.

The warhead is located in the first compartment. In the middle are the control circuits. The first two compartments need impact protection, and their critical elements are surrounded by fiberglass honeycombs. The tail section contains the cocking circuits and thermal batteries. Attached behind them is a parachute system consisting of a main Kevlar-nylon band parachute, steel cables and a pilot chute. The parachute system is capable of reducing the speed of the bomb from 900 km / h to 80 km / h in a very short time period.


Currently, 50 bombs of the B83-1 modification, which have passed through the resource extension program, may be in operation. About the same amount is kept as an emergency reserve.

Nuclear cruise missile warheads


American AGM-86B air-launched cruise missiles are equipped with W80-1 thermonuclear warheads.

The W80 family of warheads was developed by specialists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and has much in common with the warhead of the B61 aviation bomb. The production of W80 nuclear warheads began in 1979.

Thermonuclear Warhead W80

The W80 thermonuclear warhead with variable explosive power (5–150 kt) is very compact. Length - 0,8 m.Diameter - 0,3 m.Weight - 130 kg. A heat-resistant explosive is used to initiate the plutonium core.

Initially, the assembly of two modifications was carried out: W80-0 (for the Tomahawk Land-Attack naval KR) and W80-1 (for the AGM-86 ALCM airborne KR).

Modified versions of the W80-2 and W80-3, designed for advanced cruise missiles, were not mass-produced.

Loading a W80-1 warhead into a cruise missile

At present, the W80-0 warheads of the decommissioned nuclear-powered Tomahawks have been dismantled from the carriers, and a little more than 500 W80-1 warheads intended for the AGM-86В CD are considered combat-ready.

According to information published in American sources, up to 500 thermonuclear cruise missile warheads may be in storage.

In 2017, the US Congressional Budget Office announced a nuclear modernization program, which provides for the refinement of the W80-1 warheads to the W80-4 level. The modernization of the W80-1 provides for the bulkhead of warheads with the replacement of some components.


Such a decision will make it possible to increase the service life of warheads and not go beyond the framework of the treaty on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms.

It is expected that the practical implementation of work on the W80-4 will start in 2025. The deployment of new cruise missiles with updated W80-4 warheads is scheduled for 2027.

It is planned to complete the improvement of all existing warheads intended for installation on cruise missiles by 2032. For these purposes, it is expected to spend $ 11,6 billion.

Nuclear warheads for intercontinental ballistic missiles


In the recent past, the American silo-based LGM-30G Minuteman-III ICBMs were equipped with W78 thermonuclear warheads and the newer W87 - dismantled from the decommissioned LGM-118A Peacekeeper (MX) missiles.

The W78 warhead was developed in the mid-1970s by specialists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Serial production was carried out from 1979 to 1982. A total of 1 units were produced. The W083 warheads have replaced the 78 kt W3 thermonuclear warheads on the Minuteman-62 ICBMs (withdrawn from service in 170).

Currently, about 200 W78 nuclear warheads may be in a state suitable for further use, and about 400 more - in the process of processing or in storage.

Platform with warheads Mk.12A

A number of sources give different weights of the W78: from 180 to 270 kg (perhaps the last figure is the weight of the Mk.12A warhead). Height - 172 cm, diameter at the base of the warhead - 54,1 cm.

Initially, an ICBM could carry three warheads.

Between 2002 and 2006, the Americans unilaterally reduced the number of warheads to one on all Minuteman-3 missiles.


At the moment, W78 are in the final stages of their life cycle. Previously, information was published that some of the W78 warheads could be converted to the W78-2 variant. At the same time, their capacity will be reduced from 350 to 6 kt. In this case, only the plutonium "lighter" will remain on W78-2, and the container with lithium-6 deuteride will be removed.

However, the creation of the W78-2 modification is not entirely justified.

Several US nuclear security experts have criticized the W78 warhead for using heat-resistant explosives to compress a plutonium core.

In other words, the W78 warhead can detonate when exposed to an open flame, which does not meet modern requirements and creates operational risks that could potentially lead to a large-scale nuclear disaster.

Apparently, it will not come to the conversion into the W78-2 version, and all the existing W78s will be dismantled from the carriers and disposed of in the near future.

Considering that all American LGM-30G Minuteman-III ICBMs are currently equipped with only one thermonuclear warhead, existing W87 warheads - dismantled from LGM-118 Peacekeeper missiles in 2003-2005 biennium

Mk.21 warhead platform

The creation of the W87 thermonuclear warhead was carried out at the Livermore National Laboratory; it was put into service in 1986.

In total, 1988 units were produced by December 525.

The W87 warhead has an energy release equivalent to an explosion of 300 tons of TNT. Weight - up to 000 kg. Length - 270 m.Diameter at the base of the warhead - 1,75 m.

During the development of the W87, it received modern security tools, including heat-resistant explosives, a fireproof shield and advanced means of preventing unauthorized activation of warheads.

The W87 warheads are among the most recent in the US nuclear arsenal, and they can serve on the Minuteman-3 ICBMs until 2030, until these missiles are decommissioned.

A number of sources mention the W87-1 warhead, which is now allegedly being worked on.

Most likely, this designation was assigned to nuclear warheads with an extended resource. Previously, under the designation W87-1, there was a 475 kt nuclear submarine designed for the MGM-134 Midgetman small ICBM.

Submarine ballistic missile nuclear warheads


Currently, the Ohio-class nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarines are armed with UGM-133A Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles (also known as Trident D5).

The Trident-2 SLBM is capable of carrying 8 88 kt W475 thermonuclear warheads or 14 W76 100 kt warheads.

Currently, a reduced number of Mk.5 individual warheads are being installed on American SLBMs.

Platform with mock-ups of warheads Mk.5

The W88 thermonuclear warhead was developed by the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Production ran from September 1988 to November 1989. During this time period, 404 units were produced.

The weight and size characteristics of the Mk.5 warhead containing the W88 differ greatly from one source to another. The following data are most often given: weight - about 350 kg, length - 1,6 m, diameter at the base of the warhead - 0,46 m.

American authors argue that the W88 nuclear submarine of the Trident-2 SLBM structurally has much in common with the W8 nuclear submarine intended for the Minuteman-3 ICBM.


Unlike mine-based ICBMs, submarine-based SLBMs are less likely to be attacked by nuclear weapons, and therefore the W88 was designed with less stringent standards of protection against the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion.

Due to the high density of the combat compartment, the W88 warheads are located in close proximity to the third stage jet engine. Due to the senselessness of using heat-resistant explosives, fire safety requirements were reduced. The use of an ordinary blasting agent made the warhead cheaper.

Initially, the W87 warhead carrier had better accuracy (KVO 90 m) than the Trident-2 (KVO 120 m). Therefore, to ensure an equal probability of hitting a protected target, the power of the W88 warhead was increased to 475 kt.

As you know, submarine ballistic missiles are the basis of the American nuclear triad, in connection with which work has been carried out to extend the service life of a significant part of the W88 warheads.

Currently, there can be approximately 380 W88 nuclear warheads in an active state.

To equip the UGM-96 Trident I and UGM-133A Trident II SLBMs from 1978 to 1987, a 76 kt W100 thermonuclear warhead was produced. Approximately 3 warheads of this type have been assembled. Like many other American nuclear warheads, the W400 was created by Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Sectional view of the W76 warhead and the Mk.4 warhead

According to some reports, the mass of the W76 warhead is 98 kg. Combat unit Mk.4 - 165 kg.

In 2008, all Trident-1 missiles were decommissioned. As of 2009, 3 warheads remained in service.

The W76 was originally planned to have a service life of 20 years and a life extension program was launched in 2000.

The warheads upgraded under this program were designated W76-1, and the warheads were designated Mk.4A. Until 2018, 2 warheads passed through the Life Extension Program. The work, as with most other American nuclear weapons, was carried out at the Pantex Plant in Texas.

In the 1990s, American nuclear physicists criticized W76 for a number of inherent disadvantages: low energy yield, high vulnerability of electronic components and fissile materials to neutron radiation.

During the implementation of the modernization program, in addition to extending the service life of the charge, its radiation resistance was increased and a new fuse was installed, allowing for a buried detonation. In addition to the warhead itself, the warhead has undergone revision, which received the designation Mk.4A. Thanks to the modernization of the detonation system and more accurate control of the position of the warhead in space, in the event of a flight, a command is given for an earlier high-altitude detonation of the warhead.

Warheads W76-1

A nuclear strategy review published in 2018 announced the creation of a new modification, the W76-2.

During the next "modernization", which took place at the Pantex Plant, a container with thermonuclear fuel was removed from part of the W76-1 warheads. After that, the target must be hit with a 5-6 kt plutonium trigger.

Alteration of fifty W76-1 began in February 2019 and ended in September 2020.

Preparation of the Mk.4A warhead with the W76-1 warhead for modernization at the Pantex Plant

At the end of 2019, the USS Tennessee SSBN (SSBN-734) first went on combat patrol with a Trident-2 missile equipped with a W76-2 nuclear warhead.

In the Russian media, the partial transition to the W76-2 warheads is often presented as an example of the "nuclear degradation" of the United States.

However, it should be understood that there are 1 W700-76 warheads on alert and in "hot" reserve (1-6 warheads on each missile), which are the most numerous in the American strategic nuclear forces.

The "low-power" W76-2 are only a very small part of the arsenal. American experts in the field of nuclear weapons write that the vacated volume in the warhead is occupied by improved guidance systems, which have significantly reduced the CEP.

Thus, it reflects the concept also implemented in the B61-12 guided nuclear bomb. Thanks to the "surgical" accuracy, one type of nuclear weapon makes it possible to solve both strategic and tactical tasks.

Prospects for improving existing and creating new nuclear warheads


Unfortunately, the statements of a number of "experts" that the American nuclear forces have passed the point of no return are not supported by the facts.

Until 2026 alone, the US Department of Defense plans to spend $ 325 billion on nuclear modernization.

As part of the nuclear weapons modernization program from 2025 to 2030, the W80-1 thermonuclear warheads will be converted to the W80-4 modification, after which they will be able to serve on the new generation cruise missiles (AGM-20 or AGM-180) for another 181 years.

Most of the B61 family thermonuclear bombs in service will be modified to the B12-61 version, after which they, together with the B61-11, will also remain in active service for another two decades.

Apparently, the only American thermonuclear bomb of the megaton class - B83-1 - will remain in service. In any case, representatives of the Combat Aviation Command, which includes strategic bombers, announced their intention to retain the B83-1 bombs for the next 10 years.

The W78 warheads will be removed from service along with the Minuteman-3 ICBM. At the same time, YaBZ W87-1 on missiles of this type are planned to operate until 2030. By 2030, a new thermonuclear warhead is to be created for a new generation of ICBMs.

The release of the updated and modernized W88 warheads for the Trident-2 SLBM is scheduled for 2022–2026. After the modernization of the W76-1 / 2 warheads, they can be operated on SLBMs for another 40 years.

The production of a new low-yield nuclear warhead (without a thermonuclear charge) for a promising sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) is scheduled to begin in 2029.

The new W93 nuclear warhead for SLBMs may appear as early as 2030, and will enter service in 2035. It must be flexible in use, which sometimes implies the ability to control energy release, and meet special requirements, the essence of which is not disclosed. There are discrepancies in the comments of two representatives of the US Department of Defense: one argued that the new W93 warhead is replacing the W88, the other said that the W93 will replace the W88 and W76.

However, there are doubts that all new nuclear charges planned for creation will be put into service on time. In this case, the American nuclear industry will have to dramatically increase the rate of assembly of plutonium assemblies and increase the production of thermonuclear fuel. So far, the available production capacity is clearly not enough for this.

A number of experts agree that the US Department of Defense will not speed up the creation of new types of warheads, as long as the reliability of existing nuclear warheads is ensured by less expensive modernization.

According to open sources, taking into account the allocated funding, from 2026 it is planned to produce at least 30 new plutonium nodes, and from 2030 they should be produced annually at least 80 units.

Based on the available figures, it can be predicted that the American nuclear weapons research and production complex is capable of creating at least 2030 new warheads in 2045-1.

Taking into account the extension of the service life of the existing charges, such volumes of production are able to cover the urgent needs.

It should also be understood that in the event of global military challenges, the United States, possessing a very serious scientific and industrial potential and enormous financial capabilities, is able to rapidly increase the production of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
"Powerlessness" of the US nuclear industry
213 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Anzhey V.
    Anzhey V. 8 January 2022 05: 54
    +46
    Great stuff as always. Thank you Sergey!
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 8 January 2022 15: 24
      +16
      I read with lasting pleasure. Sergey, thank you very much.
  2. YOUR
    YOUR 8 January 2022 06: 05
    +39
    Interesting and instructive material. And then some piously believed that the United States is doing very well with nuclear weapons.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 8 January 2022 06: 17
      +23
      Quote: YOUR
      Interesting and instructive material. And then some piously believed that the United States is doing very well with nuclear weapons.

      The pro-government "experts" are trying hard to impose this point of view, including on the pages of the Military Review.
      1. avg avg
        avg avg 8 January 2022 10: 07
        -2
        The name, the name of the sister of these "pro-government" experts! And at the same time the goal of imposing "such a point of view"!
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 8 January 2022 10: 44
          +11
          Quote: avg avg
          The name, the name of the sister of these "pro-government" experts! And at the same time the goal of imposing "such a point of view"!

          I am sure that you are able to find their writings on your own. And the goal is to show that "we are stronger than ever" ... wassat
          1. avg avg
            avg avg 8 January 2022 10: 55
            -3
            The burden of proof lies with the asserter! So who said that?
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 8 January 2022 13: 01
              +12
              Quote: avg avg
              The burden of proof lies with the asserter! So who said that?

              What am I supposed to prove to you that you are not capable of using a search engine?
              Please, here's a prime example:
              https://topwar.ru/168555-glava-stratkom-vs-ssha-amerika-stoit-pered-tochkami-jadernogo-nevozvrata.html
              1. Secutor
                Secutor 8 January 2022 14: 58
                +9
                Horror. Such articles are worse than pests, instilling the belief that we are the strongest, and the enemies are suckers. It can have very serious consequences. Hurray for patriotism, a fun event until you shove it in the head, the Third Reich is an example of this. You need to be able to soberly weigh your strengths and capabilities.
                1. avg avg
                  avg avg 8 January 2022 17: 21
                  .
                  I do not understand your excessive exaltation from the retelling of the article of the American general.
                2. D16
                  D16 8 January 2022 22: 43
                  -6
                  Such articles are worse than pests, instilling the belief that we are the strongest, and the enemies are suckers

                  What are the claims to the articles? The Sevastopol harvest ended long ago.
              2. avg avg
                avg avg 8 January 2022 17: 17
                -3
                The publication expresses the opinion of an American general, not ours. So where are we here? Should the opinion of their generals, expressed on the pages of the open press, have any meaning for our military? Well, one should not consider our generals as children of unreasonable ones, capable of believing everything that they say / write abroad.
                1. D16
                  D16 8 January 2022 22: 48
                  -3
                  The publication expresses the opinion of an American general, not ours. So where are we here?

                  The American general has a more complete picture of the state of America's medium-sized engineering laughing ... Isn't that clear?
                  1. KKND
                    KKND 9 January 2022 00: 42
                    +9
                    Quote: D16
                    The American general has a more complete picture of the state of America's medium-sized engineering industry. Isn't that clear?

                    The American general may be well informed, but it will not prevent him from chasing misinformation in the media.
                    1. D16
                      D16 9 January 2022 09: 36
                      0
                      to drive misinformation in the media, it will not hurt him.

                      Sometimes chewing is better than talking fool
                      Addressing Members of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Congressional Armed Services Committee (House of Representatives)
              3. D16
                D16 8 January 2022 22: 37
                -6
                Please, here's a vivid example for you: https: //topwar.ru/168555-glava-stratkom-vs-ssha-amerika-stoit-pered-tochkami-jadernogo-nevozvrata.html

                Excuse me, but in what way is this vivid example wrong?
        2. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 8 January 2022 16: 48
          +7
          Quote: avg avg
          The name, the name of the sister of these "pro-government" experts! And at the same time the goal of imposing "such a point of view"!

          Well, for example, there is such a "delusional", respected by many, whose name is Konstantin Sivkov ...
          Just today I watched his YouTube video on Day TV.
          The first half, he seemed to be saying the right things, and then delirium began that the United States had lost all competencies, that Poseidon would wash away everyone and other frenzy ...
          1. avg avg
            avg avg 8 January 2022 17: 19
            -4
            Should the RF Ministry of Defense be guided by the opinion of this gentleman when making decisions in the field of military policy?
            1. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 8 January 2022 22: 10
              +11
              Quote: avg avg
              Should the RF Ministry of Defense be guided by the opinion of this gentleman when making decisions in the field of military policy?

              This gentleman, with his opuses, confirms the nonsense about Poseidons, Petrels, Vanguards.
              And their role in the "unparalleled world" ...
              Although their role is zero point zero.
              At colossal costs for their development and production.
              Meanwhile, the Sarmat missile development program simply stopped at zero.
              For the stocks of the western element base were only enough for 4 samples. Test.
              And to create a rocket in the required performance characteristics on its own element base is unrealistic.
              Take a look at lawsuits from IO to manufacturer.
              This is all there, if you know how to search and read something other than agitation ...
              1. Sanguinius
                Sanguinius Yesterday, 12: 50
                0
                Greetings ... if you don't mind, do you have links to this information?
  3. A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 8 January 2022 06: 56
    +20
    Thanks to the author for a good article.
    Clearly, detailed and informative.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. Thrifty
    Thrifty 8 January 2022 07: 12
    +2
    Interestingly, what is more expensive for a conventional nuclear warhead with a capacity of up to 300 kilotons, or a thermonuclear one, and what power? I mean that the creation of new versions of thermonuclear warheads is initially unprofitable, more difficult and more expensive in comparison with a "clean" nuclear warhead. hi Thanks to the author for the article, it is interesting and informative. good
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 8 January 2022 07: 22
      +13
      Quote: Thrifty
      Interestingly, what is more expensive for a conventional nuclear warhead with a capacity of up to 300 kilotons, or a thermonuclear one, and what power? I mean that the creation of new versions of thermonuclear warheads is initially unprofitable, more difficult and more expensive in comparison with a "clean" nuclear warhead.

      Perhaps the cost will be about the same, but a plutonium or uranium charge with a capacity of 300 kt, in comparison with a thermonuclear warhead of the same power, will definitely be more massive.
    2. yuriy55
      yuriy55 8 January 2022 07: 38
      +11
      Quote: Thrifty
      Interestingly, and at a price that is more expensive, a conventional nuclear warhead with a capacity of up to 300 kilotons

      Straight from the joke:
      - Abram, how much does an atomic bomb cost?
      - I think, Monya, at least a million.
      - (dreamily) If only she fell into our garden ...

      lol
      Thermonuclear is more economically profitable, because allows, at the same cost for the amount of radioactive substance, to obtain a greater efficiency, as well as to reduce the amount of this very substance to obtain the required power, respectively.
    3. Troll
      Troll 8 January 2022 09: 18
      +15
      Considering that the fuse for thermonuclear is a nuclear charge, it can be assumed that up to a certain power, a nuclear charge is cheaper than a thermonuclear charge. And from a certain limit of the explosion power, thermonuclear will always be cheaper than nuclear.

      This border, with the development of technology, is probably shifting to the left, that is, towards cheaper prices.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. Bormanxnumx
      Bormanxnumx 8 January 2022 12: 41
      +6
      Quote: Thrifty
      Interestingly, what is more expensive at a price - a conventional nuclear warhead with a capacity of up to 300 kilotons, or a thermonuclear one, and of the same power?

      The network has a description of the American 500Kt bombs MK18 and the British Orange Herold, which issued 750Kt (it had a thermonuclear amplification similar to the Sakharov's puff, but it did not work). The main problem of such charges is the use of a huge amount of fissile matter, about 90-114kg! Therefore, they did not turn out to be cheap, plus a lot of problems with the safety of operation of such charges were added to this.
    7. bk0010
      bk0010 8 January 2022 18: 48
      +7
      Quote: Thrifty
      Interestingly, what is more expensive at a price - a conventional nuclear warhead with a capacity of up to 300 kilotons, or a thermonuclear one, and of the same power?
      There are no nuclear warheads of 300 kt. At all. Maximum - 100 kt, in reality - 80 kt. A nuclear bomb will be 100 kt more expensive than a thermonuclear one, since it will require a burst of expensive plutonium, deuterium is cheaper.
    8. alexddd
      alexddd Yesterday, 12: 36
      0
      Thermonuclear charge involves the use of energy release during the fusion reaction. For example Deuterium plus Tritium to form Helium. An atomic charge based on the fission of uranium or plutonium nuclei as part of such a thermonuclear charge is like a fuse, that is, it creates the necessary pressure and temperature to start the fusion reaction. There are articles on the Internet that describe the explosion of a 50 megaton thermonuclear (hydrogen - because the isotopes of hydrogen deuterium and tritium combined) bombs on Novaya Zemlya, still nicknamed in the West "Kuzka's mother" because of the antics of N. Khrushchev before that at the UN. So, very interesting articles, I recommend everyone to read. It describes the process of testing and subsequent study of the epicenter of the explosion by Soviet scientists. So I was very intrigued by the facts of measuring radiation at the epicenter of the explosion a few hours later. Radiation was indicated, the level of which was close to normal. It turns out that after a thermonuclear strike, infantry can safely attack ??? So this radically changes the attitude towards the use of this type of ammunition.
  6. cost 75
    cost 75 8 January 2022 07: 23
    +12
    It would be interesting to read a similar review on other countries with nuclear weapons, and about us within the limits of what is permitted.
    1. Bongo
      8 January 2022 09: 24
      +14
      Quote: kos 75
      It would be interesting to read a similar review on other countries with nuclear weapons, and about us within the limits of what is permitted.

      Several years ago there was a review "Nuclear era". Here is its final part.
      https://topwar.ru/90076-yadernaya-era-chast-10-ya.html

      At the end of it there are active links to previous publications of the cycle. hi
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 8 January 2022 15: 28
        .
        After separating the bomb from the carrier flying at high altitude with a transonic speed, a flight range of up to 120 km, greater efficiency and "surgical" accuracy with a lower charge power are provided. - And you call this an evolutionary way, whatever the twist, the plane will have to climb to the maximum height in order to reach the maximum drop range, the plane will have to go deep into the air defense coverage area, that is, to risk the plane and the pilot as much as possible, and as I understand it, there is no guidance system other than GPS for this there is no bomb, that is, if the GPS signal on the enemy's territory is jammed, this bomb will fly into milk, the fighter plane and the bomber will have to approach the attacked object as much as possible in order to accurately drop this bomb using their onboard aiming systems, and in this version the plane, like the pilot, is dead but there are definitely no kamikaze pilots in the US Air Force. The B61 -12 will be good against those countries that have the most primitive air defense, no Air Force, no electronic warfare systems - suppressing satellite signals against countries like Russia, these bombs will have very low efficiency; If only there was something "and to save as much as possible on this. But the real evolutionary way of developing nuclear weapons for the United States would be the creation of nuclear charges for the AGM 154 gliding bombs for the AGM 158 missiles and for the GBU 39.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 8 January 2022 17: 11
          +9
          no air force lack of electronic warfare systems - suppression of satellite signals

          It is impossible to create a continuous field of interference over a huge area (how many thousands of vehicles do you need, because you do not know the exact time and direction of the attack?). The distance from the electronic warfare system to the missile / bomb should be small, because this weapon is specially made resistant to signal jamming (for example, a GPS receiver is located in it from above).
          As for countering air defense: probably, the doctrine assumes the use of bombs after the first exchange of strikes, when many previously reconnoitered targets are hit (including air defense objects), and planes with bombs are better suited to attack new targets (no need to program the missile, there are some difficulties here).
          In addition, there are inconspicuous bombers (as well as fighter-bombers), the detection range of which is noticeably reduced (it will be necessary to create a denser "field" of air defense missile systems in the area of ​​important objects, which can be difficult both in general and due to the consequences of already received and losses ...
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 8 January 2022 19: 12
            -9
            The direction of the attack is known to the entire trap of Europe, it is there that the bases with these bombs to suppress satellite communications are the Borisoglebsk 2 electronic warfare complex and the Triad 2C complex, the troops began to enter the troops in 2018, and no thousands of vehicles are needed, just one hundred of the complexes operate while in position for weeks and months.
            "As for countering air defense: the doctrine probably assumes the use of bombs after the first exchange of strikes, when many previously reconnoitered targets are hit (including air defense objects), and planes with bombs are better suited for attacking new targets (no need to program the missile, there are some difficulties here) ". The use of these bombs after the first strike will be unrealistic, since at the moment of the first strike a response will follow and all airfields from which the raid will be carried out will receive a cover - and in order to suppress some air defense, Russia has all NATO planes and missiles will have to be assembled - and this will be done imperceptibly unnoticed.
            And for attacking new targets, planes with bombs are better suited (no need to program a rocket, there are some difficulties) - this is if there is no air defense and there is an on-board guidance system that allows you to accurately lay bombs.
            In addition, there are inconspicuous bombers (as well as fighter-bombers), the detection range of which is noticeably reduced.All EPRs of aircraft in service with our military and designers of radars and air defense systems have long been there and the development of air defense systems, like radars, is not standing still - and the B61- 12 improved weapons of the distant past and improve them and even then to a minimum according to the principle "The cheaper the better and faster" because there is nothing new in exchange for new atomic charges if they begin to make for modern planning tactical bombs and missiles, if they start, then only after 2030 and even then strategic forces, cruise missiles and ICBM warheads, may be a priority.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 8 January 2022 22: 05
              +5
              the moment of the first strike will be followed by a response and all airfields from which the raid will be carried out will receive a cover

              There is not enough ammunition for all the airfields. The planes will be dispersed during a threatening period.
              And there are low-vulnerability AUG with the same F-35.
              Electronic warfare Borisoglebsk 2 and the Triad 2C complex

              Borisoglebsk-2 - a complex of jamming for communications of troops.
              "Triad 2C" or "Triad 2.3" is a mobile complex of electronic destruction of communication satellites

              How should all this work against a signal from a GPS satellite flying itself at an altitude of 20000 km? (ISS altitude - 400 km)
              all the EPRs of aircraft in service with our military and designers of radar and air defense systems have long been

              Physics is a stubborn thing and radar has range limits for a typical RCS. And if she sees 1 m2 for 400 km, then 0,01 m2 - only from 125 (etc.).
              Separately, I will ask: why don't you use knows punctuation? They were not invented for nothing wink
              1. Private-K
                Private-K 9 January 2022 14: 33
                -3
                For electronic warfare, you can start from here http://k-politika.ru/rossijskie-sredstva-reb-postavili-neuteshitelnyj-diagnoz-nato/
                By the way, bombs are a statutory base target for all available air defense systems of all classes.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 9 January 2022 14: 52
                  +3
                  I try not to read articles with pretentious headlines. request
                  The fight against ground-based air defense systems is a separate story (in short: aviation, with the right tactics, will always "disassemble" ground-based air defense systems).
                  1. Private-K
                    Private-K 9 January 2022 15: 04
                    -1
                    There is no open data on the real performance characteristics of modern electronic warfare - everything is strictly classified. Probably so. So, we use for "couch reflections" the minimum that is; and here, the very presence of certain opportunities that interest us is important.

                    While Side A is fighting the anti-missile defense of Side B, Side B will deliver its nuclear strikes on Side A. After that, Side A will not be up to the point bombing of Side B.

                    Nuclear (thermonuclear) bombs are definitely an outdated type of weapon. Keeping it in the ranks simply by inertia (1), by the fact of its presence (2), in order to maintain the role of the Air Force (most relevant for the United States).
                    Too vulnerable and the carrier of the vigorous bomb and the bomb itself from missile defense and fighters.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 10 January 2022 07: 04
                      0
                      While Side A is fighting the anti-missile defense of Side B, Side B will inflict nuclear strikes on Side A

                      The impression is that you think that side A has no nuclear weapons request
                      The infliction of such blows by side B means 100% receipt of a counter-counter from side A.
                      After that, Side A will not be up to the point bombing of Side B.

                      After the exchange of blows, the war is unlikely to stop, but the location of the targets will be changed (many coordinates with routes hardwired into the microchips of cruise missiles will become irrelevant). And here the same high-precision bombs will become relevant.
                      Too vulnerable and the carrier of the vigorous bomb and the bomb itself from missile defense and fighters.

                      Yes, there will be battles for air supremacy, but how many planes will anyone have left? Side A has at least 500 more, due to the presence of AB, large aircraft carriers UDC, invulnerable to ICBM. request
                      Ground-based air defense-missile defense is disassembled with the correct tactics and appropriate weapons (launching in the area of ​​tens / hundreds of false simulator targets and PRR).
                      1. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 11 January 2022 00: 20
                        -4
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Side A has at least 500 more, due to the presence of AB, large aircraft carriers UDC, invulnerable to ICBM.

                        is it like this? they have the whole bridge there with icons hung that their nuclear weapons do not take? belay Or maybe there is no special warhead on the anti-ship missile system?
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Ground-based air defense-missile defense is disassembled with the correct tactics and appropriate weapons (launching in the area of ​​tens / hundreds of false simulator targets and PRR).

                        and this is not by chance a trigger for a nuclear strike? hmmm ... provoke side B to be the first to strike with nuclear weapons and get rid of their own airfields, important infrastructure facilities and decision-making centers? creative step! good
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal 11 January 2022 00: 38
                        +3
                        they have the whole bridge there with icons hung that their nuclear weapons do not take?

                        Read carefully: AB is invulnerable to ICBM. Any arguments against ??
                        Or maybe there is no special warhead on the anti-ship missile system?

                        The carrier and the RCC itself must know where in the ocean AB is located. And the oceans are big, very much. Plus cover for the world's largest fleet.
                        and this is not by chance a trigger for a nuclear strike

                        This scenario is also relevant for the attacks of the remnants of air defense after the exchange of nuclear strikes. It's just a tool, a tactic request
                        provoke side B to be the first to strike with nuclear weapons and immediately get rid of its own airfields, important infrastructure facilities and decision-making centers?

                        Let me remind you that side B will immediately get rid of own airfields, important infrastructure facilities and decision-making centers.
                        IMHO, side A will be able to start hostilities only with a military attack by an ally.
                      3. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 11 January 2022 00: 44
                        -3
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Read carefully: AB is invulnerable to ICBM. Any arguments against ??

                        I read carefully ...
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Side A has at least 500 more, due to the presence of AB, large aircraft carriers UDC, invulnerable to ICBM.

                        I repeat the question, AB are hung with icons so that their nuclear weapons do not take or special warheads are not provided for the anti-ship missiles?
                        by the way, and the ports where the AB are based are also invulnerable for the ICBM?
                      4. 3danimal
                        3danimal 11 January 2022 00: 48
                        +3
                        I read carefully ...

                        How does the abbreviation ICBR stand for?
                        I repeat the question, are the AB so hung with icons that their nuclear weapons do not take, or is there no special warhead on the anti-ship missiles?

                        I repeat the answer:
                        The carrier and the RCC itself must know where in the ocean AB is located. And the oceans are big, very much. Plus cover for the world's largest fleet.

                        There is such a thing as the likelihood of failure. And with the above conditions, it is extremely small, and given the number of floating airfields, the destruction of a significant part of them tends to zero.
                        This can be noticeably leveled (except for the size of the ocean): to build a fleet equal in strength and number. But only China can do this.
                      5. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 11 January 2022 01: 39
                        -3
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        I repeat the answer:

                        you'd better learn to formulate your idea the first time wink first they wrote one thing, then they added something else ...
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        The carrier and the RCC itself must know where in the ocean AB is located. And the oceans are big, very much.

                        your logic would make sense in the middle of the last century but not in 2022. request Let me remind you that the conflict is assumed in some future, and not 50 years ago. come back to reality.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Plus cover for the world's largest fleet.

                        will he cover? exactly? as far as I can remember, the exercises to counter the old CD ended in disaster for AV. it is still in the last century. are you sure things are better now?
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        There is such a thing as the likelihood of failure. And with the above conditions, it is extremely small, and given the number of floating airfields, the destruction of a significant part of them tends to zero.

                        on the contrary, it is quite large. significant is it 11? not enough for "significant". I will also remind you that AB is a rather specific thing that can be based strictly in certain places where they are quite accessible and ICBM. Considering that there are 1-3 formations in the sea, and the rest are at the bases, their fate is unenviable. and those who are at sea are also constantly under supervision request
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Let me remind you that Side B will immediately get rid of its own airfields, important infrastructure facilities and decision-making centers.
                        IMHO

                        but this is a curious moment wink As far as I remember, side A always started from the concept of "disarming strike", while side B from the concept of "retaliatory strike". what will happen to side A when side B strikes first? in case you suddenly forget, the military doctrine of side B has changed slightly and now provides for a preemptive strike, for example, in the event of 11 AB going to sea or a suspicious concentration of strike weapons in dangerous proximity to its territory.
                        Let me remind you that side A is not able to deliver a disarming strike even with a preemptive attack, that is, it is not able to destroy airfields, important infrastructure facilities and command centers of side B. after a preemptive strike from side B, side A's strike capabilities will be significantly reduced. of course they will be able to inflict some damage, but there is definitely no need to talk about some kind of pushing through air defense or air battles request
                        there are two options. with a preemptive strike of side A, the skiff and side A and side B, and control over what remains is transferred to side B (China). in the case of a preemptive strike from side B, a skiff to side A, serious damage to side B and control over the remaining side passes to side C (China). request
                        so neither side A nor side B will go for such a scenario. wink
                      6. 3danimal
                        3danimal 11 January 2022 02: 06
                        +2
                        Let me remind you that AB is a rather specific thing that can be based strictly in certain places where ICBMs can also get them. considering that there are 1-3 formations in the sea, and the rest are at the bases, their fate is unenviable

                        In a threatening period all AB will be in the ocean.
                        Invincible to ICBM.
                        and those who are at sea are also constantly under supervision

                        This requires a fairly large fleet. And in a threatening period, they will toughly break away from the escort.
                        what will happen to side A when side B strikes first

                        Missile defense will start working (read about GMBD and its characteristics), take off mine ICBMs and give instructions to invulnerable SSBNs (in the absence of instructions, there are special red / any color packages with emergency instructions) whose patrols will cover the largest fleet. request
                        that is, unable to destroy airfields, important infrastructure facilities and command centers of side B

                        Why? SLBMs no longer fly?
                        after a preemptive strike of side B at side A, the shock capabilities will be significantly reduced. of course they will be able to inflict some damage

                        ICBM and SLBM fly for some time, sufficient for the start of a retaliatory strike.
                        SSBNs in a threatening period will be put on patrol and are invulnerable to the first strike.
                        Is it possible to rejoice at the death of someone thousands of kilometers away, knowing that in 5 minutes you will share their fate?
                        there are two options. with a preemptive strike of side A, the skiff and side A and side B and control over what remains is transferred to side B (China)

                        Most realistic. China will win, but will gain control of territory B, albeit with a badly destroyed infrastructure and a certain amount of contamination of the territory (by no means all).
                        Side A will stay away from China with its own problems and will retain control over the territory.
                      7. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 11 January 2022 12: 45
                        -3
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        During the threatening period, all ABs will be in the ocean.
                        Invincible to ICBM.

                        dooo wassat then, during the crisis in Venezuela, none of the 2 AUG in that region was able to go to sea wassat
                        but if you prefer fantasy and cartoons instead of reality, then you can. request
                        not a single AUG will leave the bases due to the fact that the nuclear submarine and strategic aviation of side B will be sunk. yes wassat
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        This requires a fairly large fleet. And in a threatening period, they will toughly break away from the escort.

                        with cocaine, whiskey and prostitutes? Well, that is a given. they can laughing crashing into each other along the way. both on the first and on the second there are real incidents and accident statistics in the fleet of side A. wassat
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        ABM will start working (read about GMBD and its characteristics)

                        do not make me laugh laughing although no .. continue. over there you have just all 11 AUG went out to sea wassat let's add more artillery to the missile defense system. what? recently they were able to shoot down the CD with howitzers. from a Boeing with an Arab, this missile defense and air defense certainly does not save at all, but the ICBM and warheads at a speed of 10M + will definitely stop! good
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        patrolling which will cover the largest fleet.

                        This is the one that could not shoot down a single North Korean missile? well, OK request
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Is it possible to rejoice at the death of someone thousands of kilometers away, knowing that in 5 minutes you will share their fate?

                        at 41, when the battles were fought near Moscow, everyone was quite encouraged by the bombing of Berlin. can you rejoice? Definitely yes. yes
                        and this is not "someone there thousands of kilometers away", it is who built military bases here, with us, at our borders, and the fact that we can turn their house to dust calms me at least by the fact that they will think ten times before that something to do here.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Most realistic. China will win, but will gain control of territory B, albeit with a badly destroyed infrastructure and a certain amount of contamination of the territory (by no means all).
                        Side A will stay away from China with its own problems and will retain control over the territory.

                        dooo wassat Of course, China will immediately rush to seize radioactive territory ... not to Africa, not to Australia, only hardcore! they are so fond of disinfecting laughing
                        well, South America, of course, after this will not rush anywhere ... Mexico, of course, will not return Texas. right there all to be honest. wassat who stole the one and the owner. laughing
                        and over what is sovereignty? over the scorched debris? the army no longer exists, the economy is gone, at least there is no role in the international sphere. sovereignty over your cave and stone ax? what if the Indians come and scalp? wassat
                      8. 3danimal
                        3danimal 11 January 2022 20: 27
                        +3
                        during the crisis in Venezuela, none of the 2 AUGs in that region were able to go to sea

                        What does this have to do with it? I was talking about placing AB somewhere in the vastness of the ocean. And yes, they will expel everything they can from the ports.
                        Well, that is a given. they can

                        Pushing one ship aside by 2-3 of our own. Numerical superiority is convenient.
                        This is the one that could not shoot down a single North Korean missile?

                        What does this "yellow press" of yours have to do with covering your SSBNs from enemy ships and submarine submarines?
                        do not make me laugh

                        So you haven't read it? Oh, this old age: if in my younger years it was too lazy to look for information, now even more so wink
                        https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-based_Midcourse_Defense



                        Antimissile range up to 5,5 thousand km, interception by average plot, to breeding blocks.
                        Large and expensive ($ 30+ million) rockets.
                      9. 3danimal
                        3danimal 11 January 2022 21: 09
                        +2
                        when the fighting was near Moscow, everyone was quite encouraged by the bombing of Berlin. can you rejoice

                        The people clearing the rubble will have no time for this.
                        China will immediately rush to seize radioactive territory ... not to Africa, not to Australia

                        First - which is closer.
                        The explosion of all American charges will be only a small part of the consequences of Chernobyl.
                        army is gone

                        Most of it will just remain: the equipment is mothballed in the deserts, the military will be dispersed.
                        The question of how much the neighbors will ask for help is another matter.
                        But Canada and Mexico lack China's expansionist ambitions. A return to the Chinese borders of the mid-19th century is very promising.
                      10. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 12 January 2022 00: 31
                        -3
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Most of it will just remain: the equipment is mothballed in the deserts, the military will be dispersed.
                        The question of how much the neighbors will ask for help is another matter.

                        will they ask? but who will even talk with what is left of the United States. do not make me laugh laughing
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        But Canada and Mexico lack China's expansionist ambitions.
                        Are you seriously? Canadians will say "no, no, no. This is American land! We will not touch it!" .. pfff-a-ha-ha wassat
                        The United States will tear apart the paramilitary groups in the states themselves, and the neighbors will seize what they have in time.
                        By the way, what kind of ambitions? are you talking about the Taiwanese cards with Siberia? well, it’s quite vulgar. laughing By the way, Taiwan is covered with the first missiles to take off in the conflict between the USA and the Russian Federation. Well, is the expansion to Siberia all right? is over? there is no initiator request
                      11. 3danimal
                        3danimal 12 January 2022 00: 57
                        +2
                        who will even talk to what is left of the United States. do not make me laugh

                        There will be enough left to be a notable player on their continent.
                        (The modern influence will have to be forgotten for a long time).
                        But it won't make it any easier for us.
                        Canadians will say "no, no, this is American land! We will not touch it!", and the Mexicans echo them

                        These are your wishes and fantasies, no more request
                        The United States will tear apart the paramilitary groups in the states themselves

                        They will get together again, agree. Not the first time. Remember: the USA was formed from below... "State" does not mean a state, but a state. A federation established by the newly independent former British colonies.
                        what kind of ambition?

                        About the fact that China remembers how in the 19th century they squeezed out most of the Far East, Tuva, taking advantage of its weakness after the defeat in the war with Britain. Take an interest, Mao reminded about this back in the early 50s during his visit to the USSR. China Yes territorial claims against us, some of them were satisfied (Damansky).
                        Taiwan is covered with the first missiles to take off in the conflict between the United States and the Russian Federation. Well, is the expansion to Siberia all right? is over?

                        Are you talking to yourself? smile
                      12. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 12 January 2022 01: 24
                        -2
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        There will be enough left to be a notable player on their continent.

                        military facilities have been destroyed, infrastructure facilities have been destroyed, there is no electricity, no factories, all that is left is pretty fonite. so what is this "enough" that will remain? advanced cancer due to radiation?
                        but basically I got your concept. "Spiderman and Superman will defeat everyone!" laughing
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        These are your wishes and fantasies, no more

                        you are wrong. very many have big scores with the United States, and when the bandit walks unconscious, his neighbors will gladly shoot him. the same Canada will participate so as not to be out of work.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        China has territorial claims against us, some of them have been satisfied (Damansky).

                        aldeady no. read the docs. all territorial issues with China are officially closed and documented yes
                        you better strain and think of why China will not participate in bending down the United States together with Russia? Our relations with the United States are equally hostile. military cooperation is in full swing.
                        I understand that you personally would really like China to attack Russia, but at the moment China and Russia are on one side, and the United States is on the other, and the United States needs to painfully think how not to get involved in a war against China and Russia request
                      13. 3danimal
                        3danimal 12 January 2022 04: 39
                        +1
                        all that is left is pretty phonite

                        At times less than in Pripyat.
                        How much fissile matter is in the nuclear warhead, what percentage reacts? Stop being lazy, or have you been banned from Google? smile
                        but basically I got your concept. "Spiderman and Superman will defeat everyone!"

                        personally, you would very much like China to attack Russia

                        These are your attempts to get personal negative
                        There were clashes with China only in the 2nd half of the 2.0 century, on the basis of territorial claims.
                        With Nazi Germany, everything was also documented.
                        the neighbors will shoot. the same Canada will participate so as not to be left out of work.

                        Your fantasies. It is difficult to find a country closer to the United States than Canada.
                        why China will not participate in bending down the US jointly with Russia

                        Because this is bending over and yourself too. Because “a wise monkey sits on the shore and looks at the passing bodies of rivals” (something like that).
                        Why what, but the Chinese are very practical.
                        at the moment China and Russia are on the same side

                        Something from the past, "Russian and Chinese brothers forever", no memories?
                      14. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 12 January 2022 14: 09
                        -1
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        At times less than in Pripyat.
                        How much fissile matter is in the nuclear warhead, what percentage reacts? Stop being lazy, or have you been banned from Google?

                        the most important thing is that my brain was not banned wink which I recommend to you too.
                        there will not be Pripyat, but just a bunch of fun with Fukushima in the load. about 60. and unlike Pripyat, there will be no one to liquidate it. you naturally didn’t think that nuclear power plants will be hit?
                        strange that such obvious things do not occur to you. request apparently superman is raging there laughing
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        These are your attempts to get personal

                        my? belay Are you sucking out the theory that China will attack the Russian Federation, which means I am switching to a personality type? amusing laughing
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        There were clashes with China only in the 2nd half of the 2.0 century, on the basis of territorial claims.

                        in the last century? half a century ago? the current state of affairs do not care? will we look at what happened in the last century? excellent position! good
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        With Nazi Germany, everything was also documented.
                        China = fascist Germany? belay and you didn’t have enough? I would also understand if you compared the United States with Nazi Germany, there are a lot of parallels, starting with non-compliance with treaties and ending with fierce militarism and massive acts of aggression ... but why is China frightened?
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Because this is bending over and yourself too. Because “a wise monkey sits on the shore and looks at the passing bodies of rivals” (something like that).
                        Why what, but the Chinese are very practical.

                        really.. what and here over there is Taiwan swimming which, according to all norms of international law, is the territory of China, and there are some pro-American separatists ... but something tells me that China will not just look at Taiwan ... over there Comrade Xi Jinping said bluntly " by all available means ". and the US will not do anything? maybe the US is not militarizing the region to "contain" China? not? in general, not a single reason to collide and heap on "restraints"? there were no sanctions or provocations from the United States at all?
                        but China should of course attack the Russian Federation wassat
                        I'm confused .. have you completely killed the remnants of logic in yourself, or at least something is left? what
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Something from the past, "Russian and Chinese brothers forever", no memories?

                        in China, something like this is the case wink by the way, unlike the relationship between Canada and the United States. personally enjoyed the maxims of the Americans that "Canada is not our friend" in comments on NI good
                      15. alexddd
                        alexddd Yesterday, 12: 58
                        +1
                        "at 41, when the fighting was going on near Moscow, everyone was quite encouraged by the bombing of Berlin. can you rejoice? Definitely yes. yes
                        and it’s not “someone there thousands of kilometers away”, it’s those who built military bases here, with us, at our borders, and the fact that we can turn their house into dust reassures me, if only because they think ten times before what do something here."[/i]

                        I fully support. In the spirit of our Prince Svetoslav. He also defeated the Khazar Khaganate.
                      16. alexddd
                        alexddd Yesterday, 12: 50
                        +1
                        I'll contribute a little to your argument. If the so-called side A hits side B, and side B responds, then side C (China) and side D (DPRK), which, by the way, recently tested a hypersonic missile before the United States, will make their feasible contribution, because side A is an animal that very many owed on the issue of spilled blood, and in this wonderful moment of confrontation they will sleep off on this side of A to their heart's content .... And given how aircraft carriers recently fled from the DPRK (the whole world saw), there really is something to be afraid of and if ours can also falter in in the middle of the battle, then the Asian comrades will throw out the entire volume of gifts due to the mentality.
                  2. Private-K
                    Private-K 9 January 2022 15: 15
                    -2
                    Pole-21 https://topwar.ru/182196-kompleksy-rjeb-pole-21-v-rossijskoj-armii.html
                  3. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 9 January 2022 19: 52
                    0
                    Here is more information on the US Air Force bases in Europe - there are 31 of them including one Turkish - B61 3 -4 bombs are located at: Netherlands Air Force Volkel Air Base 20 bombs, Belgian Air Force Klein-Brogel Air Base 20 bombs, German Air Force Büchel Air Base 20 bombs, Air Force Air Base United States Ramstein - Coordinates and supports ammunition exploitation squadrons as well as the Air Force
                    Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands for NATO nuclear strike missions, US Air Force Aviano 25-35 bombs, Italian Air Force Gedi 20 bombs, US Air Force Incirlik 50 bombs - the spread is apparently significant over a large area at a considerable distance from Russian territory except Kaliningrad - in the event of a real conflict with NATO, all these bases will be attacked first
                    By technique
                    F 16 with 5 liters in PTB, 542 × 2 kg bombs, along the high-low-low-high profile, the combat radius is 907 km
                    F 15E combat radius when flying along a mixed profile with PTB: 1270 km.
                    F 35A Combat radius of action without PTB and aerial refueling 1080 km
                    F 18 Hornet Combat radius 720 km
                    To drive planes a thousand kilometers in order to drop atomic bombs on our territory - a border zone with a depth of 120 kilometers if you are very lucky and do not knock down an airplane on the way - pure idiocy, especially since there are no strategic military objects there, they are all in the depths of the territory for this there are cruise missiles tactical gliding bombs with a flight range of 600 kilometers or more, the risk for pilots and aircraft is minimal and there is no need to leave your air defense zone.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 12 January 2022 05: 05
                      +2
                      in the event of a real conflict with NATO, all these bases will be attacked first

                      Such an attack would be mutual, no? And the attacking airfields of the force will face defenses.
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 9 January 2022 14: 51
                -5
                "And there remain low-vulnerability AUG with the same F-35." Why are they less vulnerable? RCC missiles up to 1000 and up to 2000 km have the same Dagger at the expense of airfields atomic bombs are on specific bombs and this is no longer possible, since there is a continuous radar field at all heights and during the threatened period, all air defense will be activated in advance, including the military
                How should all this work against a signal from a GPS satellite flying at an altitude of 20000 km - Ask the designers how - but the fact that the system is there and it works. Borisoglebsk 2 the same works against the satellite communication system there is also Samarkand Paladin and Divnomorie whether they can work as a hindrance to satellite communication and guidance is unknown.
                Physics is a stubborn thing and radar has range limits for a typical RCS. And if she sees 1 m2 for 400 km, then 0,01 m2 - only from 125 (etc.) What is this radar and what kind of object is it - an airplane, a rocket, a bomb, a helicopter? One radar in the field is not a warrior - several radars work from different distances.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 12 January 2022 04: 59
                  +2
                  [quote] Why are they less vulnerable
                  [/ Quote]
                  Since the ocean is very large and it is impossible to view it all. And AV can swim in radio silence mode (take an interest in the exercises "Flitex-82").
                  [quote] RCC missiles up to 1000 and up to 2000 km are available
                  [/ Quote]
                  Only in ignorant fantasies and when I want to say at least something, but I was banned from Google negative
                  [quote] during the threatened period, all air defense will be involved in advance, including the military
                  [/ Quote]
                  Air defense is opened by aviation: there is a massive and working piece - PRR and false targets simulators (KR, aircraft).
                  [quote] How should all this work against a signal from a GPS satellite flying at an altitude of 20000 km - Ask the designers how - but the fact that the system is there and it works.
                  [/ Quote]
                  Faith - it is not about proof, otherwise it is not faith smile
                  [fly to our border and cross it and go deeper to use these bombs
                  [/ Quote]
                  Let me remind you that I initially said that the use of bombs will become relevant after the exchange of nuclear strikes and the loss of relevance of intelligence on known (and now destroyed) targets
                  [quote] One radar in the field is not a warrior - several radars work from different distances.
                  [/ Quote]
                  For inconspicuous aircraft, the "dome" coverings of the radar are strongly compressed. As a result, you need several times more very expensive equipment. Which itself "shines" in all directions and directs the PRR on itself. Vicious circle.
                  In the end, it all comes down to who has more planes.
  7. yuriy55
    yuriy55 8 January 2022 07: 32
    -1
    Commendable material.
    Thank you, Sergey!
    I want to emphasize the detail and scrupulousness in the presentation.
    ==========
    Based:
    According to information published in the United States, the power of the B61-12 bomb in TNT equivalent will be stepwise regulated within: 0,3, 1,5, 10 and 50 kt.

    The "soft and fluffy" overseas democrats assigned a significant role in the alleged hostilities to nuclear weapons. Hence such a variety of power charges. And those Vietnamese carpet bombings (for what and for what purpose?) And the use of depleted uranium and phosphorus munitions can speak of "noble" intentions ...
  8. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. zyablik.olga
            zyablik.olga 8 January 2022 10: 40
            +18
            Quote: D16
            Yeah. and in his last article Piskipers carried satellites into space ...

            If they had not grunted, but had taken up a little expansion of their horizons, they might have known that the main stages of the LGM-118A Peacekeeper ballistic missile were used in the Minotaur IV launch vehicle.
            1. D16
              D16 8 January 2022 16: 26
              -9
              That is, the Minotaur on the lower engines of the Piskeeper is the Piskeeper? lol
          3. Bormanxnumx
            Bormanxnumx 8 January 2022 12: 49
            +15
            Quote: D16
            Maybe Linnik is stupid?

            Yeah. and in his last article Piskipers carried satellites into space ... lol

            Minotaur IV launch vehicle converted by LGM-118 Peacekeeper. At the moment there are 7 launches.
            1. D16
              D16 8 January 2022 16: 27
              -7
              This is a different rocket on older engines. There is even a different start.
          4. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 8 January 2022 13: 05
            +13
            Quote: D16
            Maybe Linnik is stupid?

            Yeah. and in his last article Piskipers carried satellites into space ... lol

            Ie the history of the civilian rocket Minotaur-4, you do not know at all ...
            Just a question, where do you go to blame the author, if you yourself are a complete zero?
            Knowing neither technology nor history ...
            1. D16
              D16 8 January 2022 16: 58
              -9
              The same rocket is the RS-20. And the Minotaur 4, 4+, 5 and 5+ is a new rocket on the old engines in the lower stages.
    2. Military77
      Military77 8 January 2022 12: 32
      -7
      Mmm ...
      Now let's take mathematics, physics and common sense. Any nuclear warhead in service contains a plutonium element. Its service life is 30 years maximum (with questions why - please google it, everything is written in detail about the weapon Pu-239 and how it "deteriorates" over time and why it becomes unsuitable for nuclear warheads).
      Since 2019, 4–5 plutonium assemblies have been produced annually.

      And in 1988, the Rocky Flats plant, which produced plutonium triggers (ammunition for initiating a thermonuclear explosion reaction), was closed and, as I understand it, they were not released anywhere else, let's say that 4-5 assemblies were made in laboratories "on the knee".
      We count in a column: we multiply 5 plutonium assemblies per year by 30 years, we get a maximum of 150 UNPROPLEABLE nuclear warheads of various modifications at the moment in the United States.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 8 January 2022 12: 42
        .
        In-in) There is not even for charges, but for warheads - 5500 will not come out in any way 12 was in 1991, well, more precisely, the mattresses barked)
        WASHINGTON, October 5 - RIA Novosti. The United States continues to gradually reduce the number of its atomic warheads, according to released statistics from the State Department.
        In 2020, Washington had 3750 of them against 3805 in 2019 and 3785 a year earlier. This figure does not include decommissioned warheads awaiting destruction. In addition, the United States destroyed 184 old warheads last year.
        1. Military77
          Military77 8 January 2022 22: 57
          -6
          Oh, we're super. We typed a bunch of minuses and at least one minusator would write an argument. Although if the fission of nuclei from their fusion is not distinguished and the half-life is called 100% destruction of the atoms of the source material ... Well, what kind of writer is such a reader.
          1. KKND
            KKND 9 January 2022 00: 35
            +3
            Quote: Military77
            and half-life is called 100% destruction of the atoms of the starting material ...

            Well, I was mistaken with the half-life, and you were mistaken with the damaging effect of a nuclear explosion during an underground and air blast.
            Themselves, like more than 99% of Internet users, you have absolutely no relation to nuclear weapons. So, read something.
            Quote: Military77
            Well, what a writer is - so is a reader.

            I will reveal a terrible secret. Experts in anything - work, and not knock on the keys on the Internet (they scratch with their tongue).
            1. Military77
              Military77 9 January 2022 11: 37
              +1
              Well, I was mistaken with the half-life, and you were mistaken with the damaging effect of a nuclear explosion during an underground and air blast.

              You are, in principle, mistaken.
              From the article above, I quote:
              An underground explosion with a capacity of 50 kt, carried out at a depth of 7–10 m, is equivalent in destructive effect to an air explosion with a capacity of 750 kt.

              And I, in my comments to the previous article, wrote about an underground explosion, and you, having distorted everything, began to compare the GROUND and air.
              I will reveal a terrible secret. Experts in anything - work, and not knock on the keys on the Internet (they scratch with their tongue).

              Don't bang the keys, you don't need to.
              1. KKND
                KKND 9 January 2022 12: 22
                +3
                Quote: Military77
                And I, in my comments to the previous article, wrote about an underground explosion, and you, having distorted everything, began to compare the GROUND and air.

                An underground explosion enhances the destruction of underground and not ground objects.
                In the commentary, nowhere is it said which objects you were going to destroy there.
                Okay, can be attributed to the fact that here we misunderstood each other.
                Quote: Military77
                Don't bang the keys, you don't need to.

                So I'm here a local sofa expert of the 80th lvl, where will the resource run away without my overvalued opinion?
          2. Grim Reaper
            Grim Reaper 9 January 2022 16: 34
            0
            The half-life is the mean-probable period over which N can turn into M in time T. Maybe, but not fixed. Roughly speaking, a kg of uranium can mutate in a day, or maybe in a billion years. There are chances. :)
      2. KKND
        KKND 8 January 2022 23: 02
        +3
        Quote: Military77
        Any nuclear warhead in service contains a plutonium element. Its service life is 30 years maximum (with questions why - please google it, everything is written in detail about the weapons-grade Pu-239 and how it "deteriorates" over time and why it becomes unsuitable for nuclear warheads).

        Well, if the crystal lattice of plutonium is broken, it is not difficult to remelt it. Or have the Americans and the technology of metal remelting forgotten?
        1. Military77
          Military77 9 January 2022 11: 39
          +1
          And the uranium isotope U-235 and the isotopes Pu-238 and Pu-240 will evaporate when melted?
          1. KKND
            KKND 9 January 2022 12: 30
            +2
            Quote: Military77
            And the uranium isotope U-235 and the isotopes Pu-238 and Pu-240 will evaporate when melted?

            Well, suppose the swollen crystal lattice really interferes with the compression of plutonium-239.
            How did you decide that the scanty amount of uranium U-30 atoms accumulated over 235 years will prevent the start and continuation of the chain reaction?
            It is likely that if the half-life is 24000 years, then the impurities will be so insignificant that a chain reaction will take place, well, the energy release may decrease by a percentage tending to zero.
  9. Operator
    Operator 8 January 2022 07: 48
    +10
    The most important thing in the nuclear potential of any country is not complete thermonuclear warheads of missiles, bombs and torpedoes, consisting of a plutonium first stage and a deuteride-lithium second stage, but the amount of weapon-grade plutonium itself in the form of small metal pit pancakes.

    The minimum amount of plutonium required for the manufacture of the first stage of a thermonuclear warhead is 6 kg. If the United States has about 100 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, this will be enough for the manufacture of 16 thousand thermonuclear charges with a capacity of 100 Ktn to 1 Mtn.

    In the late 1980s, the number of complete thermonuclear charges in the USSR reached 50, and in the USA - 40. The USSR was the leader in the production of weapons-grade plutonium, which gave our country the opportunity during the 1990s to double its superiority in the total number of thermonuclear charges. In connection with the collapse of the USSR, the amount of weapons-grade plutonium from the Russian Federation and the United States was reduced by several times by "loosening" weapons-grade plutonium with uranium 238 and turning it into fuel for nuclear power plants. Most of the Russian and American energy plutonium in accordance with the Chernomyrdin-Gore agreement was burned in US nuclear reactors.

    The Russian Federation retained its weapons-grade plutonium production facilities in Zheleznogorsk. The United States has eliminated its capacity, and at the moment it receives limited amounts of energy plutonium from France.

    Bringing the production of weapons-grade plutonium in Zheleznogorsk to full capacity will allow the Russian Federation to restore the Soviet nuclear potential in the amount of 10 thousand thermonuclear charges in 50 years, and double it in 20 years. Placing thermonuclear charges with a capacity of 100 Ktn to 1 Mtn on medium-range land, sea and air-based missiles, not limited by existing treaties, will make it possible to sow the entire territory of the US allies in Europe, Asia and America with the square-nesting method, and also save it for a strike on the United States. thermonuclear charges placed on strategic delivery vehicles and limited by the current START treaty.

    PS A low-sensitivity chemical explosive used to compress plutonium in the first stage of a thermonuclear charge is called TATB, and a highly sensitive chemical explosive is called HMX. At present, a finely dispersed HMX is produced with a size of spherical crystals from 1 to 5 microns, phlegmatized with polyvinyl alcohol, the sensitivity of which corresponds to TATB.
    1. D16
      D16 8 January 2022 10: 30
      -9
      The most important thing in the nuclear potential of any country

      Constant funding for development in this area, rather than frantic attempts to reinvent what people have done without problems in the last century. Money by itself does not turn into nuclear weapons. Oops request
      by "loosening" weapons-grade plutonium with uranium 238 and turning it into fuel for nuclear power plants.

      by "loosening" weapons-grade plutonium with uranium 238 and turning it into fuel for nuclear power plants.

      500 tons of weapons-grade uranium 235 were processed and sold. Plutonium is used very limitedly only in MOX assemblies.
      they are currently receiving limited quantities of energy plutonium from France.

      What for? What then to bury it on your own territory? They can't use it. The French never built a processing plant.
    2. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 8 January 2022 13: 09
      +6
      Quote: Operator
      The most important thing in the nuclear potential of any country is not complete thermonuclear warheads of missiles, bombs and torpedoes, consisting of a plutonium first stage and a deuteride-lithium second stage, but the amount of weapon-grade plutonium itself in the form of small metal pit pancakes.

      The minimum amount of plutonium required for the manufacture of the first stage of a thermonuclear warhead is 6 kg. If the United States has about 100 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, this will be enough for the manufacture of 16 thousand thermonuclear charges with a capacity of 100 Ktn to 1 Mtn.

      In the late 1980s, the number of complete thermonuclear charges in the USSR reached 50, and in the USA - 40. The USSR was the leader in the production of weapons-grade plutonium, which gave our country the opportunity during the 1990s to double its superiority in the total number of thermonuclear charges. In connection with the collapse of the USSR, the amount of weapons-grade plutonium from the Russian Federation and the United States was reduced by several times by "loosening" weapons-grade plutonium with uranium 238 and turning it into fuel for nuclear power plants. Most of the Russian and American energy plutonium in accordance with the Chernomyrdin-Gore agreement was burned in US nuclear reactors.

      The Russian Federation retained its weapons-grade plutonium production facilities in Zheleznogorsk. The United States has eliminated its capacity, and at the moment it receives limited amounts of energy plutonium from France.

      Bringing the production of weapons-grade plutonium in Zheleznogorsk to full capacity will allow the Russian Federation to restore the Soviet nuclear potential in the amount of 10 thousand thermonuclear charges in 50 years, and double it in 20 years. Placing thermonuclear charges with a capacity of 100 Ktn to 1 Mtn on medium-range land, sea and air-based missiles, not limited by existing treaties, will make it possible to sow the entire territory of the US allies in Europe, Asia and America with the square-nesting method, and also save it for a strike on the United States. thermonuclear charges placed on strategic delivery vehicles and limited by the current START treaty.

      PS A low-sensitivity chemical explosive used to compress plutonium in the first stage of a thermonuclear charge is called TATB, and a highly sensitive chemical explosive is called HMX. At present, a finely dispersed HMX is produced with a size of spherical crystals from 1 to 5 microns, phlegmatized with polyvinyl alcohol, the sensitivity of which corresponds to TATB.

      Engineers from Nizhnyaya Tura are surprised to read your op ...
      1. Operator
        Operator 8 January 2022 16: 05
        -6
        I understand that the plumbing engineers from Haifa in your person are in solidarity with their colleagues from Nizhnyaya Tura bully
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 8 January 2022 15: 34
      -8
      "The minimum amount of plutonium required for the manufacture of the first stage of a thermonuclear warhead is 6 kg. If the United States has about 100 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, this will be enough to make 16 thousand thermonuclear charges with a capacity of 100 Ktn to 1 Mtn." Only now, in addition to plutonium, other materials are needed in a thermonuclear warhead.
      1. Operator
        Operator 8 January 2022 16: 07
        -4
        Enlighten - what other materials exactly (besides, of course, lithium deuteride, which was mentioned)?
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 8 January 2022 18: 55
          +3
          The main components of modern nuclear charges are the following:

          - stable (spontaneously non-fissile) uranium isotope U-238, extracted from uranium ore or (as an impurity) from phosphate ore;
          - radioactive (spontaneously fissile) isotope of uranium U-235, extracted from uranium ore or produced from U-238 in nuclear reactors;
          - Pu-239 radioactive isotope produced from U-238 in nuclear reactors;
          - a stable isotope of hydrogen, deuterium D, extracted from natural water or produced from protium in nuclear reactors;
          - radioactive isotope of hydrogen tritium T, produced from deuterium in nuclear reactors;
          - stable lithium isotope Li-6, extracted from ore;
          - stable isotope of beryllium Be-9, extracted from ore;
          - HMX and triaminotrinitrobenzene, chemical explosives.

          From the site: https://topwar.ru/155757-razvitie-konstrukcij-jadernyh-zarjadov.html
          1. Operator
            Operator 8 January 2022 21: 15
            0
            Only plutonium-239 is critical for the state's nuclear potential, since it requires sophisticated technology and equipment for its development.
            All other constituents of thermonuclear charges such as lithium and beryllium deuteride are common chemical elements and compounds that are massively used in civilian industries. The stable isotope of uranium 238 has been accumulated in the dumps of enrichment enterprises around the world about 1 million tons. The chemical industry produces tens of thousands of tons of HMX annually. Tritium as an initiator of the first stage of a thermonuclear charge is an optional element - its absence is compensated by a large amount of plutonium (~ 7 kg).
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 8 January 2022 19: 20
          -1
          Yes, the same Beryllium, Uranium 238, and it needs to be made and assembled with great precision.
          1. Operator
            Operator 8 January 2022 21: 23
            +2
            For beryllium, see above.

            Uranium 238 is used exclusively in the third stage of thermonuclear charges, and the article discusses two-stage. In addition, uranium 238 is a non-deficient chemical element - over 1 million tons of this metal in purified form is in the dumps of enrichment enterprises.
        3. D16
          D16 8 January 2022 19: 50
          -2
          There and with lithium deuteride 6, hemorrhoids are enough:
          http://www.atominfo.ru/newsl/s0352.htm
  10. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 8 January 2022 08: 13
    +5
    I thank the author for an informative article about US nuclear weapons ... I would like to know more about small nuclear special charges for special forces ... how things are going. what
    In addition, I think that the US press probably has the same review of the state of Russia's nuclear weapons ... I would like to see it at the VO ... of course smile within the framework of the law on non-disclosure of state secrets. hi
    1. Bongo
      8 January 2022 09: 29
      +16
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      I thank the author for an informative article about US nuclear weapons ..

      drinks
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      I would like to know more about small nuclear special charges for special forces ... how things are with that.

      Officially, such sabotage charges have been eliminated. But, who knows, how things really are with this ... request
      In any case, you can use existing technologies and past developments, and, if desired, quickly assemble new compact nuclear mines.
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      In addition, I think that the US press probably has the same review of the state of Russia's nuclear weapons ... I would like to see it at the VO ...

      In the current Russian realities, for an article on this topic, written even on public and open materials, you can get a real deadline. sad
    2. Wildcat
      Wildcat 8 January 2022 23: 03
      +4
      Open data, exclusively.

      Judging by the data of the "General Lebed scandal", there were exactly the backpacks:
      "Nuclear mini-munitions were intended to be carried behind the back. Therefore, it is wrong to say that they are some kind of nuclear suitcases, reticules, etc. No professional will understand such terminology as the head of the 1977th Chief management of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation (protection of warehouses of nuclear weapons) Igor Valynkin, when he argued that "no suitcases, carpet bags, reticules and other handbags have ever really existed."
      ...
      At one time, on the initiative of Bush Sr. and Gorbachev, it was decided to destroy all nuclear mini-munitions. In the United States, nuclear mines were eliminated, according to some sources, at the end of 1991, according to others - in 1992. At that time, Russia possessed about two hundred nuclear weapons and was also destroying them. In April 2000, during the consideration of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Igor Ivanov announced that all nuclear mines in Russia had been destroyed. The technology for their destruction is the same as for all other nuclear weapons: they are sent to a manufacturing plant and dismantled there.

      The information that these mines could have disappeared from the storage warehouse is groundless, believes Colonel-General Viktor Yesin. Two comprehensive inspections of the safety of nuclear satchels took place. The first was conducted by a joint commission of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Atomic Energy. And then, when the repeated noise began, President Boris Yeltsin instructed Andrei Kokoshin, then the secretary of the Russian Security Council, to carry out a second examination. Among the members of the commission was Viktor Esin himself. In a cross-check, he personally counted each nuclear backpack. "
      https://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2004-07-30/2_terror.html?id_user=Y

      However, various "beggars" tried to convince the US congressmen that there were some suitcases.

      https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Lebedbomb.html

      The American "backpack" looked like this:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device
      1. Private-K
        Private-K 9 January 2022 14: 57
        -1
        The sabotage nuclear mines, I was told, consisted of TWO hefty containers.
        1. Wildcat
          Wildcat 9 January 2022 15: 21
          +2
          There is no data on this at all.
          But two containers seem like an illogical solution, maybe there is some kind of detachable control unit in mind? Why two containers, if everything can be done in the dimensions of a 152 mm projectile, that is, from 50 kg.?
          Two people are always a risk that one will not come.
          And if in the USA they made a mine, which was carried by one person, then the Party and the Government in the USSR would not have allowed to do something for two.
          1. Private-K
            Private-K 9 January 2022 15: 25
            +1
            Not so simple. The projectile is stored in a special container with a special system for maintaining the "microclimate". All this is both weight and size. YAM should include all this. Those. not only the "shell" itself, but everything that ensures its storage and detonation.
  11. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 8 January 2022 08: 23
    +6
    Thanks to the author! I read it with pleasure. Rumors about the "death" of the American nuclear industry (its military component) were clearly exaggerated.
    1. Military77
      Military77 8 January 2022 13: 03
      .
      Yeah, if the US had a nuclear industry in good condition, then "sleeping Joe" would send Mr. PeZhe with his ultimatum to hell (and this is the closest where he could send him). Count: 5 assemblies for 30 years - 150 combat-ready nuclear warheads and that's all there is.
      1. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 8 January 2022 13: 11
        +2
        Quote: Military77
        Yeah, if the US had a nuclear industry in good condition, then "sleeping Joe" would send Mr. PeZhe with his ultimatum to hell (and this is the closest where he could send him). Count: 5 assemblies for 30 years - 150 combat-ready nuclear warheads

        I don't see the connection. They have 100 tons of plutonium. The warheads are sufficiently active. Do I need to collect more? Warheads are also reassembled periodically, albeit with long time intervals. Not everything is good there, the staff has grown old, young people do not want to go to hazardous production for any price. But this does not mean that the US nuclear weapons are "rotten" and that they can be pressed on this basis.
        1. Military77
          Military77 8 January 2022 13: 22
          -7
          Warhead is active enough

          They are inactive if Pu-239 has not been changed in them for more than 20 years. The product of alpha decay (helium) renders them unusable during this period, they "swell", i.e. the crystal lattice loses its integrity, which is critical for the operation of nuclear warheads. And plutonium assemblies are made, according to the article, 4-5 per year.
          1. Operator
            Operator 8 January 2022 16: 23
            +2
            Plutonium assemblies and pits, on average, once every 30 years, are cleaned of the spontaneous decay products of unstable plutonium isotopes 238 and 241, which make the fission reaction of the weapon-grade plutonium 239 isotope unstable.
            After each purification procedure, plutonium becomes even more stable, after three cycles (~ 90 years from the date of primary production), plutonium 239 can be removed from traces of spontaneous decay products of 238 and 241 isotopes.
            1. Military77
              Military77 8 January 2022 23: 12
              -2
              Em. I am tormented by doubts, and with the help of what reaction in the normal state in the isotope Pu-239 can Pu-238 and Pu-240 be formed? According to this study (http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf) in the normal state in Pu-239 in 100% of cases only alpha decay occurs with the formation of the isotope U-235 and helium He- 4
              1. Operator
                Operator 9 January 2022 00: 29
                +1
                Plutonium isotopes 238, 240, 241 and 242 are formed as by-products of fission of isotopes 235 and 238 in a nuclear reactor during the production of the target isotope plutonium 239.

                It is not possible to completely purify plutonium 239 from unstable isotopes of plutonium 238 and 241 (240 and 242 are stable isotopes). Therefore, every 27-30 years plutonium 239 is cleaned from the decay products of plutonium isotopes 238 and 241 (such as americium).
                1. Military77
                  Military77 9 January 2022 12: 01
                  0
                  Didn't know, thanks for the info.
  12. Egoza
    Egoza 8 January 2022 08: 39
    .
    In total, the United States has approximately 5 nuclear warheads, most of which are not deployed - in storage, or awaiting disposal.

    And who believes that they will "dispose of" them? Unless they will sell it to someone, despite the "strict accounting".
  13. Hermit21
    Hermit21 8 January 2022 10: 02
    +6
    Unfortunately, the statements of a number of "experts" that the American nuclear forces have passed the point of no return are not supported by the facts.

    The last physical package was assembled in 1992; the resumption of production of new nuclear basement plants is planned to begin no earlier than 2033-2035. And it is not a fact that the terms will not float to the right once again. At the same time, the volumes are called very modest: 30-50 pieces per year.

    Current and future upgrades and re-equipment are essentially shuffling physical packages between carriers and warheads.
    1. D16
      D16 8 January 2022 10: 59
      .
      The author writes to you in Russian and white at the beginning of the article:
      Since 2019, 4–5 plutonium assemblies have been produced annually.

      Don't believe me? True, he does not bother himself with evidence. Chat is not Wikipedialaughing.
      1. Hermit21
        Hermit21 8 January 2022 11: 08
        +2
        EMNIP, this is a test release. Well, the author's terms are outdated, now they are talking about a full-fledged resumption of production from 2033-2035. And then, even in such terms, few people believe.
      2. Toucan
        Toucan 8 January 2022 11: 14
        +7
        Quote: D16
        The author writes to you in Russian and white at the beginning of the article:
        Since 2019, 4–5 plutonium assemblies have been produced annually.

        Don't believe me? True, he does not bother himself with evidence. Chat is not Wikipedialaughing.

        If you undertake to quote, quote in full. The author further writes in Russian:
        According to open sources, taking into account the allocated funding, from 2026 it is planned to produce at least 30 new plutonium nodes, and from 2030 they should be produced annually at least 80 units.

        Apparently this is too difficult for you, as well as finding out how the decommissioned MX ICBMs were used.
        1. D16
          D16 8 January 2022 12: 17
          .
          If you undertake to quote, quote in full.

          I quote as I see fit. I am only interested in the past and the present. The future tense is deceptive and vague.
          how to find out how the decommissioned MX ICBMs were used.

          I know how they are used. Minotaur 4-5 are made on the basis of the remaining engines.
          1. Toucan
            Toucan 8 January 2022 13: 30
            +7
            Quote: D16
            I quote what I see fit

            That's right, and taking phrases out of context, build your fantasies on the basis of this.
            1. D16
              D16 8 January 2022 16: 32
              -4
              taking phrases out of context based on this build your fantasies

              Against. I separate the wheat from the chaff, reality from fantasies about the future.
  14. Undecim
    Undecim 8 January 2022 11: 24
    +16
    The bomb is 3,58 m long and 0,33 m in diameter and consists of several parts. The nose cone contains the control electronics. Behind it is a compartment with a charge, which looks like a metal cylinder. Then another compartment with electronics and power supplies. In the tail section, equipped with stabilizers, a parachute is placed, designed to slow down the speed of the fall, so that the plane that dropped the bomb can safely escape.

    I will somewhat supplement the description of the B-61 bomb, since the author left behind the scenes some, it seems to me, interesting details.

    In the nose compartment of the bomb, fuses are installed - one radar and two electromechanical. This combination allows, depending on the nature of the target, to detonate in the air at a given height, on the ground upon impact, on the ground on command and when buried in the ground.
    The second compartment is the actual warhead. But in the third compartment, in addition to the control equipment, two solid-propellant rocket engines are installed, which ensure the rotation of the bomb in flight around the longitudinal axis to stabilize it.

    Model 11 and 12 bombs are not equipped with a braking parachute.
    1. D16
      D16 8 January 2022 16: 46
      .
      But in the third compartment, in addition to the control equipment, two solid-propellant rocket engines are installed, which ensure the rotation of the bomb in flight around the longitudinal axis to stabilize it.

      This means that it has become even easier to shoot down by means of military air defense.
  15. Engineer
    Engineer 8 January 2022 12: 02
    +8
    Personal wish. Let the author analyze the prospects and plans for the rearmament of the US nuclear triad with new models and the modernization of old ones. And then one local military freak in all seriousness broadcasts about the critical difficulties faced by the United States in maintaining the existing arsenal and attempts to rearmament. Even a war, sick, will be forced to start without options in the 2030s. For further only a complete collapse. With this sauce, I have already written down a whole series of articles on VO.
    1. KKND
      KKND 8 January 2022 22: 57
      +6
      Quote: Engineer
      And then one local military freak

      Well, I pulled a little owl on the globe. With whom, here, on VO this does not happen?
      Favorite activity of the authors on VO!
  16. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 8 January 2022 12: 11
    +6
    Thanks for the great and informative article!
    Nuclear weapons experts believe the US has more than 100 tons of plutonium

    These numbers should be shown more often to those smart people who like to talk about the degradation of the US nuclear industry.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 8 January 2022 16: 10
      -8
      "Experts specializing in nuclear weapons believe that the United States has accumulated more than 100 tons of plutonium" - Key word "Consider" the meaning is this - that is, then no, then maybe or probably. And that would create thermonuclear charges and replace warheads of one plutonium will not be enough. Nuclear weapons in the United States are currently degrading their nuclear potential, they preserve them by cutting off the charges themselves. There is no new mass production, there is only an experimental small-scale production with time, but in the next 10-15 years, they will not.
      1. KKND
        KKND 8 January 2022 22: 54
        +6
        237th, and where are the rest of your friends-bots with three digits in the comments? So far, only you and the 77th for all are working. lol
        Demand a salary increase! soldier
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 9 January 2022 15: 05
          -3
          The bots are only here for you and in general you end up crap not essentially writing.
    2. D16
      D16 8 January 2022 16: 40
      -5
      These numbers should be shown more often to those smart people who like to talk about the degradation of the US nuclear industry.

      It is she who is shown. Fortunately, a modern vigorous loaf is not only plutonium, and in the United States they have little idea of ​​what to do with it under an agreement:
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1_%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F
      But somehow it didn't work out with the MOX fuel production plant laughing
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 8 January 2022 17: 32
        +6
        I may be wrong, but the allies of the United States (Canada) are quite effectively developing an alternative direction (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU), and maybe the MOX is working on it. The United States will simply buy these technologies at the right time, most likely now it owns good shares in the atomic setups of its allies. The discussion on what to do with spent nuclear waste and whether it is reasonable to extract additional profit from it is still an open discussion.
        1. D16
          D16 8 January 2022 18: 34
          -3
          alternative direction (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU)

          There are many ways. The question is which one is economically viable. Heavy tap water does not flow.
          The USA will just buy these technologies at the right time.

          They have already bought a plutonium reprocessing plant laughing .
          The discussion on what to do with spent nuclear waste and whether it is reasonable to extract additional profit from it is still an open discussion.

          We would be glad to close, but there is nothing lol .
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 8 January 2022 19: 23
          -6
          "The discussion on what to do with the spent nuclear waste, and whether it is reasonable to extract additional profit from it, is still an open discussion." In Russia, Rosatom does not discuss this issue, but has been working for a long time.
          1. D16
            D16 8 January 2022 23: 24
            -3
            In Russia, Rosatom does not discuss this issue, but has been working for a long time.

            In France, they have also been working on this for a long time.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 9 January 2022 15: 08
              -3
              If they are working in this direction in France, then why are they bringing nuclear waste from Europe to us?
              1. D16
                D16 9 January 2022 17: 24
                +3
                If they are working in this direction in France, then why are they bringing nuclear waste from Europe to us?

                First you need to decide on the waste. These are their spent assemblies or depleted uranium hexafluoride. We process the first one and re-enrich it, but this applies to fuel rods produced by us. The second so-called. "tails" are the raw material for the separation of U235. It's just that our separating capacities make this process cost-effective.
    3. Hermit21
      Hermit21 8 January 2022 21: 28
      -5
      So it's not about plutonium, but about the ability to make warheads out of it. And these plans are constantly being postponed. At first, the resumption of production of YaBZ was planned in general from 2017, and now in 2033, few people believe and do not expect until 2035 or even closer to the 40th. And they don't believe in the voiced volumes either.
  17. smaug78
    smaug78 8 January 2022 16: 19
    +7
    Quote: Military77
    Yeah, if the US had a nuclear industry in good condition, then "sleeping Joe" would send Mr. PeZhe with his ultimatum to hell
    So you're on the couch, not on the front line. So I didn't send laughing Come on, laugh further, at the same time remember the date of the negotiations ...
  18. Sergey Melnik
    Sergey Melnik 8 January 2022 18: 10
    +3
    Good material is selected
  19. Sergey Melnik
    Sergey Melnik 8 January 2022 18: 23
    -3
    Quote: zyablik.olga
    Quote: YOUR
    Interesting and instructive material. And then some piously believed that the United States is doing very well with nuclear weapons.

    The pro-government "experts" are trying hard to impose this point of view, including on the pages of the Military Review.

    And where are they wrong? Nobody knows how many nuclear weapons the Americans have really ready for combat use, and this text does not give an answer to it. By the way, how did you manage to determine according to this article that the "pro-government experts" are imposing something on you? And yes, this is just a story about the B / C itself, and nothing is said about the carriers, and they are no less important as the B / C itself.
    1. KKND
      KKND 8 January 2022 22: 50
      +4
      Quote: Sergey Melnik
      And where are they wrong? Nobody knows how many nuclear weapons the Americans have really ready for combat use, and this text does not give an answer to it.

      So these "experts" do not really know anything either, but this does not prevent them from telling tales about the rotted nuclear shield.
      Quote: Sergey Melnik
      By the way, how did you manage to determine according to this article that the "pro-government experts" are imposing something on you?

      They impose not in this article, but in completely different ones. Propaganda is an attempt to impose an opinion.
      Quote: Sergey Melnik
      You can also continue to believe in the "holy American nuclear warheads", no one bothers you.

      Everyone decides for himself what to believe. Until reality harshly imposes. laughing
  20. vladimych
    vladimych 8 January 2022 20: 05
    -6
    Are these not the bombs and missiles that you regularly lost in the air or forgotten at gas stations?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 January 2022 15: 17
      0
      Yes, it was precisely those bombs B61 bombers that crashed into refuelers during patrolling, spontaneous dropping occurred - automatic glitches or the crew accidentally dropped fires at the airfield with aircraft that had atomic bombs suspended.
  21. Maks1995
    Maks1995 8 January 2022 21: 02
    +6
    Good stuff.
    Without water, philosophizing and with specifics. Which is not always the case.
  22. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 8 January 2022 21: 06
    +2
    The highlight of the B83 is the supersonic bombing capability (up to 1,4 M)

    And right there right away
    The parachute system is able to reduce the speed of the bomb from 900 km / h to 80 km / h

    Well, still 900 km / h corresponds to the number M = 0,74 at an air temperature of 288K. So the handouts should be translated more critically. And the topic is interesting, respect to the author.
    1. KKND
      KKND 8 January 2022 22: 46
      +2
      So the parachute does not have to be opened by the automation. Although the author may be wrong here. request
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 9 January 2022 13: 54
        +2
        So the parachute does not have to be opened by the automation. Although the author may be wrong here.

        If it is not opened when the bomb is dropped, then the speed of the product will only increase over time.
        1. KKND
          KKND 9 January 2022 14: 09
          0
          Quote: Aviator_
          If it is not opened when the bomb is dropped, then the speed of the product will only increase over time.

          No. The velocity will become constant when the gravity of the bomb is balanced by the force of air resistance, provided the bomb is stabilized with minute fluctuations. Or will jump at
          somersault bomb.
          Perhaps there is a drop at a speed of 1,4 M, from a great height to break through the bunker.
          A parachute is needed to drop from low altitudes in order to have time to escape.
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 9 January 2022 14: 18
            +3
            The velocity will become constant when the gravity of the bomb is balanced by the force of air resistance, provided the bomb is stabilized with minute fluctuations. Or will jump at
            somersault bomb.

            Firstly. The discharge of nuclear weapons is always parachute, so that the carrier is not too damaged by the explosion.
            Secondly, have you read my comment? At the moment of dropping, the speed of the bomb is equal to the speed of the carrier. Some braking is possible, since the bomb, by definition, does not have its own power plant. Then acceleration in free fall up to transonic speed (M = 1,2 - 1,4) if you do not release the parachute.
            Thirdly, the design of the bomb body is being worked out for stable release in the case of external suspension and stabilized flight after a drop. No "hesitation" is allowed.
            1. KKND
              KKND 9 January 2022 14: 31
              0
              Quote: Aviator_
              Firstly. The discharge of nuclear weapons is always parachute, so that the carrier is not too damaged by the explosion.

              Well, with a drop speed of 1,4M at high altitude, the plane will have a lot of time to turn around and escape. Very controversial. There is a bomb at 120 km from Sergei in the article, what kind of parachute?
              Quote: Aviator_
              Secondly, have you read my comment? At the moment of dropping, the speed of the bomb is equal to the speed of the carrier. Some braking is possible, since the bomb, by definition, does not have its own power plant. Then acceleration in free fall up to transonic speed (M = 1,2 - 1,4) if you do not release the parachute.

              It is necessary to calculate what is the constant velocity of the bomb. It depends on the mass of the bomb and the force of air resistance for this bomb. Yes, and only transound up to 1.2 M is considered.
              Quote: Aviator_
              Thirdly, the design of the bomb body is being worked out for stable release in the case of external suspension and stabilized flight after a drop. No "hesitation" is allowed.

              You didn't get it. Stabilization of a bomb with a classical tail is absolutely impossible without bomb vibrations. Plus the density of the air changes with altitude. It is somewhat naive to think that when a stabilized bomb is dropped after balancing its weight and air resistance, its speed becomes a constant once and for all.
              1. Aviator_
                Aviator_ 9 January 2022 14: 35
                +2
                You didn't get it. Stabilization of a bomb with a classical tail is absolutely impossible without bomb vibrations. Plus the density of the air changes with altitude. It is somewhat naive to think that when a stabilized bomb is dropped after balancing its weight and air resistance, its speed becomes a constant once and for all.

                The resultant forces are zero, the speed is constant. You have refuted Isaac Newton himself! Are you against Newton's II law?
                1. KKND
                  KKND 9 January 2022 14: 45
                  +2
                  The bomb falls from a height. Well well! The forces have reached equilibrium. The force of air resistance increases as it approaches the ground and is much stronger than the force of the weight of the bomb. The force of air resistance increases over time, the bomb slows down.
                  The vibrations of the bomb. The bomb is dropped and inevitably the emergence of forces tending to rotate the bomb. Stabilizers fight them. The plumage works in such a way that it gradually extinguishes the resulting vibrations of the bomb body. A very long time must pass before the vibrations completely disappear (I am silent about the wind). The bomb will have time to fall to the ground 10 times.
                  1. Aviator_
                    Aviator_ 9 January 2022 17: 10
                    +2
                    The force of air resistance increases as it approaches the ground and is much stronger than the force of the weight of the bomb. The force of air resistance increases over time, the bomb slows down.

                    Well what can I say. Slows down somewhat, remaining supersonic. Until supersonic wind tunnels were developed, model drops from aircraft were often used to study transonic phenomena. There was such a period, this is the middle of the 40s. As for the fact that the increasing air density when approaching the ground will slow down the bomb - I agree. But the trance sound will still remain if you do not release the parachute. As for the wind, the maximum wind speed in the jet stream is about 100 m / s, but you still need to look for it. Again, this is at high altitudes. The falling speed of a free-fall bomb is more than 1000 m / s, that is, 10 times more. About hesitation. I don't need to read the theory of damped oscillations here. There will be, but within the specifications for the product.
                    1. KKND
                      KKND 9 January 2022 18: 42
                      +1
                      Quote: Aviator_
                      But the trance sound will still remain if you do not release the parachute.

                      So why do you persist that free-fall bombs fall on transonic? Do you have any references to such bomb velocities? Or was it when it was?
                      I am personally not sure. The stewardess fell from the plane from 10000 meters without a parachute and survived. Google it if you're interested.
                      Of course, the density and mass of bombs is higher than the density and mass of a person, but a person falls at a speed of 160-180 km / h.
                      If bombs fell on transsound, I think people would not have such doubts about breaking the sound barrier on an airplane. request
                      In any case, you need links or calculations of bombs similar in mass. hi
                      1. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 9 January 2022 18: 57
                        +2
                        So why do you persist that free-fall bombs fall on transonic?

                        From the fact that such experiments were carried out at LII in 1946-1948.
                      2. KKND
                        KKND 9 January 2022 19: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Aviator_
                        From the fact that such experiments were carried out at LII in 1946-1948.

                        So can I have any link?
                      3. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 9 January 2022 19: 38
                        +2
                        Only to his 1975 lectures, which were read to us by Professor Taits.
                      4. KKND
                        KKND 9 January 2022 20: 43
                        0
                        I looked on the Internet, too, no one knows anything.
                        In general, I don’t believe anyone, neither the Internet nor respectable professors with a beard.
                        I don't believe in physics textbooks either. There is a bunch of nonsense like the plane flies because the wing is subject to Bernouli's law. Lol. On the wing, just air particles fall at an angle and create a lift due to collision.
                        And most importantly, the institutes are full of teachers who have memorized nonsense from textbooks, not understanding anything, and carry it to youngsters.
                        I would like to tell you a little-known saying (here on VO I read it in the comments)
                        "Someone can do something.
                        Who can do nothing, teaches others how to do it.
                        Who does not know how to teach, teaches how to teach. "
                        But I admit I can’t do anything myself, but I don’t teach anyone either, so I learn quietly drinks
                      5. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 9 January 2022 20: 55
                        +2
                        I don't believe in physics textbooks either. There is a bunch of nonsense like the plane flies because the wing is subject to Bernouli's law.

                        Textbooks do not require faith, they are not Scripture. Consider a stream of air coming up to the leading edge of the wing profile. Continuous flow. At the front critical point, this trickle splits into two: one flows around the profile from above, the other from below. Behind the profile, they close at the rear critical point. The upper trickle travels a longer distance than the lower trickle - and the medium does not break here. This means that the speed of the top is greater, therefore, the static pressure is less than that of the bottom. This is how a lifting force arises, if in a simple way, without contour integrals and circulations. The results of direct measurements of the static pressure on the profile surface through the drainage holes confirmed this more than 100 years ago. Nowadays (1970s) the measurement of the velocity around the profile with the help of LDIS (laser Doppler velocity meter) also confirmed this all. Your opinion that the result of the lifting force is the result of collisions with molecules (Newton's hypothesis) is true only with reservations at altitudes over 70 km, where there is a free molecular flow.
                      6. KKND
                        KKND 9 January 2022 21: 12
                        0
                        No. Imagine that the plane is flying and air particles enter the lower wing of the wing. They provide resistance and lift. Now imagine that the air has magically disappeared from above the wing.
                        Lift was created without any left currents. It is even strengthened.
                        No trickles or paths are needed. When a super-strong wind blows on you, just put a large sheet of iron so that you are shielded by it and fly somewhere.
                        Set up vertically, fly back, set at an angle and voila, fly up at an angle. That's all without any left streams and paths. Air particles transmit impulse and that's it.
                        And Bernouli's law for pipes in textbooks is also false. That is, everything is described there correctly, but as with the wing of an aircraft, it is specially wrong.
                        And confusing and even false explanations in physics textbooks are given so that young gouges really try to think with their own heads and not cram like other subjects in schools and universities.
                        The physics textbooks are still full of deliberate, convoluted false explanations.
                        Sorry for the bad Russian from the tablet I am writing, and so it was always 3 in Russian.
                      7. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 9 January 2022 21: 19
                        +2
                        I don’t know what to answer you. In the absence of air above the wing, it will be lifted upward by the pressure difference from below (there is air and the molecular chaotic movement of molecules), and there is none from above - the pressure is zero. This pressure difference will pull up and in your case. But we are in a continuous medium (at normal atmospheric pressure, there are 10 to 19 power molecules in each cubic cm! This is a mess, we really live at the bottom of the air ocean (Toricelli). the lift is given by rarefaction over the wing, and there is no "impact of molecules" there.
                      8. KKND
                        KKND 9 January 2022 21: 37
                        0
                        And what is the pressure? Particles hitting the underside of the wing.
                        Once again, the plane stands still. The impacts of particles on the top and bottom of the wing are equal.
                        Began to move. Since the wing was initially located at an angle to the horizon, particles began to knock at the bottom at an angle to the normal. This force can be vectorially decomposed into resistance to horizontal movement and lifting, do it yourself, do not believe me.
                        And from above, because of the same angle but which is already completely different in relation to air particles from above, the particles began to exert less momentum, less pressure, in other words.
                        But all sorts of trickles have nothing to do with it. Just a sheet of iron is placed at the right angle to the motion vector.
                        On rockets without a wing, there are no streams either, the lift is provided there by the body, as on aircraft at high angles of attack.
                        The trickles are just fun.
                        Sorry, but you have a mess in your head of knowledge, without understanding how everything works.
                        Without offense, I myself do not understand a lot.
                      9. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 9 January 2022 21: 43
                        +3
                        Sorry, but you have a mess in your head of knowledge, without understanding how everything works.
                        Without offense, I myself do not understand a lot.
                        And you try to calculate something according to your scheme. I succeed, suddenly you succeed. And think about the carrying capacity of the rocket body too. And vortex formation - does it work according to your theory? Good luck!
                      10. KKND
                        KKND 9 January 2022 21: 49
                        0
                        You know as well as I do that at low velocities, vortices are not formed. And you know that vortices are not calculated even on supercomputers, there are no formulas.
                        But even at transonic speeds, nothing fundamentally changes. The vortices do not greatly interfere with the falling of the particles at an angle.
                        And the trickles have nothing to do with vortices.
                      11. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 9 January 2022 21: 58
                        +4
                        You know as well as I do that at low velocities, vortices are not formed. And you know that vortices are not calculated even on supercomputers, there are no formulas.

                        Everything is there, everything is considered. And the Karman track, which led to wind resonance and the destruction of a number of bridges?


                        The picture shows the destruction of the Tacoma Bridge in 1940. The table shows destroyed bridges from vortices that have arisen when flowing around their structures.
                      12. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 9 January 2022 21: 36
                        +2
                        More about the detachable and non-detachable flow around the plate. Here you write that the wind, acting on a plate placed perpendicular to it, will exert pressure. Yes, it will, but the flow around the plate will be detachable, the drag coefficient (dimensionless force on the surface) will be 1,17. And at the propeller profile, with a continuous flow, you can achieve a lift coefficient of up to 3. Back in 1843, the British made such an experiment - they took two steamers with the same steam engines, but with different propellers (screw and wheel), they pulled them together and turned on at full speed ... The screw pulled the wheel one and towed it at a speed of 1,5 knots. This means that continuum mechanics is a science.
                      13. KKND
                        KKND 9 January 2022 21: 41
                        0
                        What are the odds, what are you talking about. Humanity does not know how to calculate turbulence, therefore, wind tunnels are needed.
                        Again. The aircraft creates lift due to the fact that either the wing or the body is tilted at an angle. Everything. There is no need to overcomplicate anything, and even out of topic.
                      14. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 9 January 2022 21: 49
                        +5
                        Humanity cannot calculate turbulence

                        Do you know her models - Ka-epsilon, at least? Developed in the early 80s. Perfectly used in numerical calculations. About "tilted at an angle". How do you explain the lifting force of the profile in the section in the form of an arc? And look how any aircraft with advanced mechanization scatters on takeoff, at least the IL-76 (it has a lift coefficient of 3 in this mode). It has a negative geometric angle of attack. Does your theory explain this?
                      15. KKND
                        KKND 9 January 2022 21: 59
                        0
                        How everything started. Look at the corner of the flaps. And imagine that you are holding a sheet at exactly this angle in front of you, and the wind is in your face. So where are you going? In the direction? Think about it with your head. What is the negative flap angle? The flaps are needed just for a sharp increase in lift, it is somewhere in the region of 45-60 angle of attack for flaps. A plus.
                        I'm tired of explaining everything.
                        To your credit, you did not slip into rudeness, but I cut it alive. But not on purpose.
                        In principle, it was interesting to talk to you.
                      16. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 9 January 2022 22: 05
                        +3
                        To your credit, you did not slip into rudeness, but I cut it alive. But not on purpose.

                        Rudeness slipped through you, but I'm used to not reacting to trifles. Still, I have an MIPT education, specializing in aerodynamics and thermodynamics, it is difficult to talk to an unprepared interlocutor. I teach general physics at the Moscow Aviation Institute part-time, in addition to my main job in a scientific office. You see, everything "overthrown" by you has been working for more than 100 years, and it develops further. Best wishes.
                      17. region58
                        region58 13 January 2022 01: 21
                        0
                        Quote: KKND
                        Lol

                        https://youtu.be/H2RRiF24L4A
                        Interesting lecture. An hour, but it's worth it.
    2. Bongo
      9 January 2022 02: 12
      +2
      Hello! Minus, then someone put you, I annihilated.
      Let's see what the article says:
      The highlight of the B83 is the supersonic bombing capability (up to 1,4 M) against heavily fortified targets (ICBM mines, bunkers). The bomb was designed from the very beginning to hit hard on reinforced concrete surfaces.

      For this, it has a powerful steel hull, divided by three internal bulkheads. The bomb is equipped with a hollow shock-absorbing steel tip with concentric crush rings to prevent ricochet or slip.

      The warhead is located in the first compartment. In the middle are the control circuits. The first two compartments need impact protection, and their critical elements are surrounded by fiberglass honeycombs. The tail section contains the cocking circuits and thermal batteries. Attached behind them is a parachute system consisting of a main Kevlar-nylon band parachute, steel cables and a pilot chute. The parachute system is able to reduce the speed of the bomb from 900 km / h to 80 km / h in a very short time period.

      Sergey, where does it say that 1,4 M is 900 km / h? I didn’t say that. No.
      The publication indicates the maximum supersonic speed at which bombing is possible.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 9 January 2022 13: 51
        +2
        Hello namesake. I understand from the text that supersonic bombing is a hydrogen bomb. And on it there is a parachute limit of 900 km / h, since all nuclear weapons are dropped by parachute. That is, there is a discrepancy between the two statements.
        1. Bongo
          9 January 2022 18: 03
          +2
          Quote: Aviator_
          I understand from the text that supersonic bombing is a hydrogen bomb. And there is a parachute limit of 900 km / h on it, since all nuclear weapons are dropped by parachute.

          The B83 bomb can be dropped at speeds up to 1,4 M, at a drop speed of 900 km / h, braking occurs in a very short time period.
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 9 January 2022 18: 14
            +1
            Not too clear. And from M = 1,4 to M = 0,74 (900 km / h) will it slow down itself before the introduction of the parachute system?
            1. Bongo
              10 January 2022 04: 25
              +2
              Quote: Aviator_
              Not too clear. And from M = 1,4 to M = 0,74 (900 km / h) will it slow down itself before the introduction of the parachute system?

              You did not understand. No. The maximum speed at which the bomb can be dropped is M-1,4 M. For what time period it is decelerated at this speed there is no data in open sources. The description for the B83-1 bomb says that when dropped at a speed of 900 km / h, it slows down "in a short time."
  23. Hermit21
    Hermit21 8 January 2022 21: 36
    -4
    Why are almost all commentators in such ecstasy? The United States has not produced a single new physical package since 1992, almost no one believes in the announced plans to resume production from 2033, and they write off 150-200 warheads a year. The multitude of plans should not be misleading: this is just a shuffling of warheads from old SBCs to new ones; physically, these are all the same 30- and more-year-old physical packages.
    1. D16
      D16 8 January 2022 22: 14
      -7
      Believers.)))
      Naked king, naked king lol .
    2. KKND
      KKND 8 January 2022 22: 44
      +3
      Quote: Hermit21
      The United States has not produced a single new physical package since 1992, almost no one believes in the announced plans to resume production from 2033, and they write off 150-200 warheads a year.

      According to the information of the Americans themselves, laid out in the public domain? Like we have a nuclear shield rotted, you can attack.
      Dear, in the open access about topics of such importance, they only spread misinformation. Everything.
      1. Hermit21
        Hermit21 9 January 2022 08: 13
        -1
        And indirectly, too. Yes, and we are monitoring these topics, of course. It is impossible to completely hide such a specific production. And the author's two sheets in no way negate the fact that American warheads are 30 or more years old.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 9 January 2022 15: 23
          -3
          The W76 has been around for over 40 years - they were all made in the 70s.
  24. Wildcat
    Wildcat 8 January 2022 23: 08
    +2
    hi
    As always a great article!
    Will the next article be about delivery vehicles and storage locations for American bombs?
    1. Bongo
      9 January 2022 02: 16
      +2
      Quote: Wildcat
      As always a great article!

      drinks
      Only "patriots" and bots on the payroll got overexcited. But this is predictable ... lol
      Quote: Wildcat
      Will the next article be about delivery vehicles and storage locations for American bombs?

      The next one will be about "rotten" bombers, with a description of the storage locations for missile launchers and bombs.
      1. Military77
        Military77 9 January 2022 12: 13
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        Only "patriots" and bots on the payroll got overexcited. But this is predictable ...

        Well, calm them down, tell them where and, approximately, in what quantities the plutonium elements of nuclear warheads are purified from isotopes that have accumulated over 30 years since the production of these elements.
      2. Wildcat
        Wildcat 9 January 2022 15: 42
        +3
        Only "patriots" and bots on the payroll got overexcited. But this is predictable ...
        in general, their logic is not clear. If every NATO battalion in the exercises in the Baltic region is perceived as "an aggressive NATO bloc got close, war is coming soon", then nuclear weapons should generally be held in "temniki" as an absolute reason for the fight for peace, the fight for the environment and a pretext for slogans: for each " inkhiy "YAO we will answer with two" nashenskie "ones.
        But no, "take it easy, citizens," theirs "nuclear weapons are rotten, and what is not rotten is sour and there will be no new one."

        Moreover, for the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Belgium (who else have you forgotten?) You can even broadcast about the fact that "you, dear comrades, with your information security with B61, they just want to tie blood" if anything ", densely mixed with nuclear weapons they say, not only the United States is going to use nuclear weapons. "

        IMHO, there is some typo in the "temniki", but no one wants to fix it.
  25. Wildcat
    Wildcat 8 January 2022 23: 44
    +4
    [media=http://www.lasg.org/videos/B61-12_SAND8928_2015.mp4]
    Video with tests B 61 12
    http://www.lasg.org/videos/B61-12_SAND8928_2015.mp4
  26. Wildcat
    Wildcat 9 January 2022 00: 14
    +1
    "At the end of 2019, the USS Tennessee SSBN (SSBN-734) first went on combat patrol with a Trident-2 missile equipped with a W76-2 nuclear warhead.

    In the Russian media, the partial transition to the W76-2 warheads is often presented as an example of the "nuclear degradation" of the United States. "

    Rather, it is "hello" to us and to several other countries.

    Sorry google translation:
    "John Donnelly .....: The Defense Science Council, among others, has advocated the development of new options for maneuvering smaller nuclear warheads instead of simply delivering by air, talking mainly about ICBMs and SLBMs. I think so. I think that given the Russian escalation for victory, if you will, or the escalation for the de-escalation doctrine, the United States needs more options. What are you thinking, that's my question. Especially in light of the fact that there are those who are worried that this will further institutionalize the idea that it is possible to fight and maybe even win a limited nuclear war.

    General Hayten:… we will look at this in the Nuclear Posture Review over the next six months. I think this is a pertinent question, but I'll just tell you what I have said publicly up to this point and also as we move on to the Nuclear Posture Review.

    ... in the past and where I am now is that I will just say that the plans that we have right now, one of the things that surprised me the most when I took over command on November 3rd was the flexible options that is in all plans today. So we actually have very flexible options in our plans. So if something bad happens in the world and there is an answer, and I am on the phone with the defense minister, the president and all the staff, that is, the attorney general, the secretary of state and everyone else, I actually have a number of very flexible options from conventional to large-scale nuclear weapons that I can advise the president to give him options for what he would like to do.

    So I'm very happy with the flexibility of our response options today. Whether the President of the United States and his team feel that this gives him enough flexibility is up to him. So we'll look at that in the Nuclear Posture Review. But I have publicly stated in the past that our plans are now very flexible.

    And the reason I was surprised when I got to STRATCOM about flexibility is because the last time I did or was involved with the nuclear plan was about 20 years ago, and there was no flexibility in the plan. It was big, huge, destructive. … Now we have the usual countermeasures, including nuclear ones, and I think that is very cool.
    .
    While almost all discussions on the new W76-2 focus on scenarios for Russia, it is far more likely that the new low-yield weapons are intended to facilitate the first use of nuclear weapons against North Korea or Iran. Both the National Security Strategy and the PLO describe the role of nuclear weapons in countering "conventional strategic attacks and large-scale conventional aggression." And NPR explicitly states that W76-2 is intended to "broaden the range of credible US responses to a nuclear or conventional strategic attack."
    ...
    In the case of the W76-2, stationed aboard a submarine that would otherwise be part of the strategic nuclear forces, in the midst of the war, Russia would have to determine that the tactical launch of one or more low-powered Tridents was not really a revelation. ... a stage in a much larger escalation of strategic nuclear war. Thus, it seems unlikely that any president would approve of the use of the W76-2 against Russia; the Trident submarine deployment may actually self-sustain. "
    1. Hermit21
      Hermit21 9 January 2022 08: 30
      +2
      In the Russian media, the partial transition to the W76-2 warheads is often presented as an example of the "nuclear degradation" of the United States. "

      The TNW installation at strategic the carrier cannot be called anything else. Suggest why?
      Rather, it is "hello" to us and to several other countries.

      This is hello to the Americans, who, in response to the launch of such a "TNW", will be thrashed at full swing.
      1. D16
        D16 9 January 2022 10: 49
        0
        Installation of "TNW" on a strategic carrier

        After "castration", the W76-2 remains a strategic weapon, since it is not determined by power, but by the carrier. Another question is the reasons for this action. And something tells me that they are simple to the point of disgrace and are associated with a deficiency of Li6 deuteride.
        1. Hermit21
          Hermit21 9 January 2022 11: 20
          +1
          The Americans present this perversion precisely as tactical nuclear weapons.
          1. D16
            D16 9 January 2022 13: 55
            0
            The Americans present this perversion precisely as tactical nuclear weapons.

            This is out of the problem.
      2. Wildcat
        Wildcat 9 January 2022 14: 01
        +4
        This is hello to the Americans, who, in response to the launch of such a "TNW", will be thrashed at full swing.

        So the Americans themselves are worried: how will the Russian Federation distinguish the "flexible response" with the help of Trident from the plan that was "big, huge, destructive"?

        In addition, in defense of such a "miracle plan" they point out that it can be difficult to "warn" with the help of the B61, because they will have to take off from the bases of the allies, and they may object. And Trident does not need to be coordinated, and it flies quickly.

        But overall, yes, the idea is so-so.
        1. Hermit21
          Hermit21 9 January 2022 14: 20
          0
          So the Americans themselves are worried: how will the Russian Federation distinguish the "flexible response" with the help of Trident from the plan that was "big, huge, destructive"?

          About that and speech. This is not because of a good life, but because the production of YaBZ for of normal NSNW and nuclear weapons in general. So they are trying to get rid of it.
          1. Wildcat
            Wildcat 9 January 2022 14: 49
            +4
            This is not
            from a good life
            , but from the permanent dispute between the military and politicians in the United States.

            Politicians say: "Why the heck we your A Bombs, the last time they were used was in 1945. The collateral damage is enormous, the political damage is unacceptable. And the movement for nuclear disarmament is galloping through the streets. Plus environmentalists are galloping. Let's go with our A Bombs, better tolerance. take care of educating young people on the weekends. And buy weapons that you really intend to use. "
            Plus all sorts of celebrity politicians who really want the Nobel Prize and talk about "nuclear zero".
            Let's listen to these experts (music in the background is a little annoying, like in drug ads):


            And the military replies: "Well, while other people's reconnaissance planes fly around the White House and the Capitol, only A Bombs save us from Armageddon. And by the way, if an intolerant terrorist locks himself in a bunker or cave, puts on chemical and bio weapons, laughs at tolerance and global warming, it can be evaporated together with chemical and biological weapons, we have tiny bombs. a tiny one to undermine. Avos proneset. "

            The logic is wild, but something like that.
            The USSR is long gone, but the struggle for nuclear disarmament of the NATO bloc is still under way. Let's hear the opinion of the expert on nuclear disarmament I. Kobzon


            And just in case. There is no need to anger people who still have drawings lying around somewhere on how to make A Bombs from three-inch barrels and bags of gunpowder. They have enough materials for this, if they "bake" "not from a good life."
            1. Hermit21
              Hermit21 9 January 2022 17: 09
              0
              They've been trying for 30 years to remember where those blueprints are. And other people have restored polymers and now have orders of magnitude more opportunities for this.

              And I don’t know why the United States has a huge ass with nuclear weapons, whether from the fact that they sawed everything under the influence of euphoria from HEU-LEU, or from disputes between politicians and the military, but I wish them to go in the same direction. It will be easier for us later.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 9 January 2022 20: 01
                -3
                Just because of budget savings in the 90s, they devoted a lot of things, and the costs of nuclear weapons were minimized as much as possible, they began to develop all high-precision weapons for their creation and the purchase of UAVs, etc., all the money was gone.
  27. Wildcat
    Wildcat 9 January 2022 00: 26
    +3
    The Belgian F16 trains with the B61 (training white and red variant for dropping).

    Taken here http://www.vliegtuigspotten.vadma.nl/galleries/196Volkel/photos/16072007-IMGP1379.jpg
  28. Skipper
    Skipper 9 January 2022 07: 53
    -5
    What's the use of these modernized nuclear warheads if the CARRIER, represented by ICBMs / SLBMs, is OLD..the terms of which the command has been extending several times. In the literal sense, rotten and rusty ICBMs in mines according to commission reports ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 January 2022 15: 36
      -1
      Yes Minutemans 3 old missiles of the late 60s are the only thing that is modern among carriers only Tridents 2D5, and even then this ICBM does not have a missile defense system and the W87 -88 warheads have a smaller reservation so that the missile could take more warheads.
  29. Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 9 January 2022 15: 56
    0
    Also in service are tactical aviation nuclear bombs (approximately 220 units) for fighter-bombers.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++ ×
    Perfect definition of fighter-bombers.
    This is a bomber jacket with tiao. Dropped it, destroyed it.
    ;)
  30. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 9 January 2022 16: 52
    -6
    Mr. Linnik is undoubtedly a unique person. Such healthy sheets, filled with facts that have nothing, absolutely nothing useful or interesting. On the other hand ... in one of my posts, I shared the information that I was given in the 9th (from my memory) grade of the Soviet school and in civil defense lessons in it. The post was immediately carefully removed by the administration.
    Apparently the administration considers all Soviet physics, including school physics, to be an entirely military secret. Then I have bad news for them - Elon Musk managed to read all this as a child! In general, the American nuclear arsenals, if not rotted, then rotted hard. For reasons that I will not expound, because the administration will remove them again, hoping for some unknown military secret. I just want to say that Mr. Linnik has not denied this in a word or in a word. Just watering us with names for some reason ...
    1. Bongo
      10 January 2022 12: 27
      +4
      Quote: Mikhail3
      he did not refute this in a word, not in a word.

      Maybe the unknown Mr. hiding behind the pseudonym "Michael3" is simply unable to assimilate information that runs counter to his "patriotic" views? wassat
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 10 January 2022 20: 16
        -5
        What kind of information?! Where did you find her? This garbage is a translation of the open source description of the American nuclear industry from the Library of Congress. What kind of information did you manage to find there ?! Plague...
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 11 January 2022 06: 28
          +3
          Perhaps rubbish in someone's head and a plague in the comments?
          1. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 11 January 2022 09: 25
            -5
            Olga, quote me, or state closely to the text, what exactly you have extracted as new information from the series of articles. Perhaps you had no idea that the United States has laboratories, plants and factories for working with nuclear materials? Or was their names a discovery? Or what?)
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 11 January 2022 16: 13
              +4
              Quote: Mikhail3
              Olga, quote me, or state closely to the text, what exactly you have extracted as new information from the series of articles. Perhaps you had no idea that the United States has laboratories, plants and factories for working with nuclear materials? Or was their names a discovery? Or what?)

              Perhaps you, as a nuclear physicist or a person working in the nuclear weapons industry, were not interested in everything stated in this publication, but I, as a person far from this topic, read it all with pleasure. In any case, this is more objective and more interesting than the nonsense that someone Vyatkin writes on this topic.
              In addition, I am extremely unimpressed that you allow yourself to get personal without giving facts. This characterizes you accordingly. negative
              What is wrong with the author using open American sources? Do you have others?
              It is very naive to believe that the US nuclear weapons have "rotted" and, being the world's first economy overseas, is unable to repeat what was already done 50 years ago. Perhaps it will be a revelation for you, but the Americans annually spend a little less than the entire military budget of Russia on improving their nuclear arsenal.
              1. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 11 January 2022 18: 34
                -5
                Madam) What is "this"? What exactly did you read? You cannot even quote a phrase from the text, and this is natural. You are far from nuclear issues. I, too, are not close now, and my highest concerns nuclear reactors only partially. Most of the site visitors are like that.
                Can you explain to me why list the US nuclear facilities? And not even yourself, but combing Google translation? What does it give you? If you were an official of the GRU, in 78 years old, the name of the Livermore Center mentioned in a civilian source would give you a plus sign in the monthly report. And it's all)
                The article should be INTERESTING. For this, it contains just enough facts to substantiate the author's point of view. Both articles can be summarized in one phrase - the United States, as a nuclear power, has numerous laboratories, plants and factories dealing with nuclear issues. And then a logical failure follows.
                People who say the US nuclear arsenal has "rotted" are aware of this. In the course of what the "author" (the real authors of the text are American PR specialists) is poisoning readers for the second article in a row. And still they say what they say. Why? The author does not answer a sound. Instead, he drives google text, filling signs for the loot. It's a shame ...
                1. Toucan
                  Toucan 12 January 2022 11: 20
                  +2
                  Quote: Mikhail3
                  Instead, he drives google text, stuffing signs for the loot ...

                  In turn, I want to wish the author not to pay attention to the intrigues of envious people and frankly not smart people. fool
                  Sergey, your publications are interesting and easy to read. good
                  Write more, the dog barks, and the caravan moves on! fellow
                  1. Mikhail3
                    Mikhail3 12 January 2022 11: 21
                    -3
                    Vasily, and your tables are next to the "author", or through one? I would like to wish you further relaxed freebies, what is there)
                  2. Bongo
                    12 January 2022 13: 22
                    +3
                    Quote: Tucan
                    In turn, I want to wish the author not to pay attention to the intrigues of envious people and frankly not smart people. fool
                    Sergey, your publications are interesting and easy to read.

                    Vasily, thank you for the positive assessment of my work and good wishes!
                    Perhaps tomorrow there will be another publication on the air component of the American nuclear triad.

                    Quote: Tucan
                    Write more, the dog barks, and the caravan moves on!

                    I have not paid attention to yapping for a long time ... drinks
  31. Eroma
    Eroma 9 January 2022 20: 10
    0
    I heard the opinion that a thermonuclear explosion in itself is not radioactive, and radiation in thermonuclear charges is formed thanks to a nuclear detonator, which starts a thermonuclear reaction.
    And all countries are working on the creation of pure thermonuclear weapons, with the help of which it will be possible to demolish cities and then immediately build up new ones.
    I wonder what is the main deterrent today: the destructiveness of nuclear weapons, or their radioactivity making the territory unusable? what
  32. Iron
    Iron 10 January 2022 04: 28
    0
    Quote: Mikhail3
    Elon Musk managed to read all this as a child! In general, American nuclear arsenals, if not rotted, then rotted hard

    Because they're stupid! So Zadornov said. I don’t understand one thing, how can this be? Everything is bad with the first economy in the world, bonbs are rotting, tanks are rubbish, soldiers are worthless, etc. And all of us have no analogues. Before the war, they sang songs too. Yes, we are, yes, on a foreign land ... First, we washed ourselves in Finnish blood, then from 41st to 43 we washed our faces. Moreover, the economy of the USSR then made it possible to fight. And now? In fact, our economy will not even pull one more Russian-Japanese economy. Roll out the fuck. Well at least there is a vigorous bomb. If not rotted ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 10 January 2022 17: 36
      -5
      After the collapse of the USSR, the United States put a horseradish on the creation of a new nuclear weapon - a new doctrine of contactless war and rapid global strike appeared, the key word in which precision weapons should be played strike UAVs, guided projectiles, tactical guided missiles and bombs, all funds of the military budget from the 90s went to this as well as to create new weapons. They realized recently that they need new ICBMs, submarines, warheads and cruise missiles until 2036, they want to spend more and more trillion dollars on everything. ... And we all have no analogues - yes, at the moment in the Strategic Missile Forces in the world of such new products as we have no one else.
      First, they washed themselves in Finnish blood, then from 41st to 43rd they washed. Moreover, the economy of the USSR then made it possible to fight. And now? And now there will be no more such wars - they are in the past - now is the era of high-precision weapons.
      In fact, our economy will not even pull one more Russian-Japanese economy. Roll out the fuck. Why doesn't it work? - in which case our strategic aviation will roll out Japan - there are no more cruise missiles X 101 and X 555, and there is more in service than to roll out, and this is a Fact. And Japan is aware of this, nor should they be considered fools.
      Well at least there is a vigorous bomb. If not rotted ... They are most likely all removed from service - as an obsolete weapon that does not meet the requirements of modern warfare, the KAB 500 and KAB 1500 with a capacity of one two kilotons each for the destruction of underground facilities remained for the rest - for the rest, there are missiles with a nuclear warhead.
  33. Two
    Two 10 January 2022 07: 03
    +4
    Good information content. Easy to read. Many human thanks to the author!
  34. EvilLion
    EvilLion 10 January 2022 08: 46
    -4
    In general, Americans have some kind of special Plutonium that does not disintegrate, and after decades it is not clogged with decay products. Yes, and to build reactors, well, nafig, since the 70s EMNIP has not done a single one.
    1. KKND
      KKND 10 January 2022 17: 39
      +4
      Quote: EvilLion
      Yes, and to build reactors, well, nafig, since the 70s EMNIP has not done a single one.

      And what about the reactors on their nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers?
  35. Sergey Melnik
    Sergey Melnik 10 January 2022 12: 38
    -1
    Quote: KKND
    Quote: Sergey Melnik
    And where are they wrong? Nobody knows how many nuclear weapons the Americans have really ready for combat use, and this text does not give an answer to it.

    So these "experts" do not really know anything either, but this does not prevent them from telling tales about the rotted nuclear shield.
    Quote: Sergey Melnik
    By the way, how did you manage to determine according to this article that the "pro-government experts" are imposing something on you?

    They impose not in this article, but in completely different ones. Propaganda is an attempt to impose an opinion.
    Quote: Sergey Melnik
    You can also continue to believe in the "holy American nuclear warheads", no one bothers you.

    Everyone decides for himself what to believe. Until reality harshly imposes. laughing

    So it seems that the article is being discussed here and not butting on the propaganda field of you and "pro-government experts" somewhere in other publications. And you don't need to shout about your faith to anyone at every corner, since it is not interesting to anyone, and in some places only causes laughter The nuclear shield, if you are not in the know, implies not only B / C but also their maintenance, storage, modernization, if necessary, periodic check of the operability of all elements, delivery vehicles, with the repair of these delivery vehicles and their maintenance, availability in the operational condition of these delivery vehicles, and the fact that there are modernized warheads does not mean that there is an operational nuclear shield itself. So the words that he rotted may well be appropriate if we consider everything as a whole and not just one of the parts. And yes, why did you get so overexcited when the question of the freshness of the American shield came up? It seems not yours
  36. Iron
    Iron 10 January 2022 21: 08
    +1
    Quote: Vadim237
    After the collapse of the USSR, the United States put the hell on the creation of new nuclear weapons - a new doctrine of contactless war and a quick global strike appeared.

    Buddy ... The first thing I was taught in the martial arts section, never underestimate your opponent. You better overestimate.
    And here you are seriously sure that we can roll Japan only with strategists. Seriously? Don't even dream about nuclear weapons. Because of the islands, its guarantor will not apply. Since there are a lot of legal loopholes and we may well cede them as disputed islands to China. And if with conventional weapons? It will turn out as well as then. Laudatory speeches that we will roll out the Japanese and then wash ourselves. This has already happened. They have an advantage in the Pacific. It is a fact. China will not get into this cut. This is also a fact. And enough is being likened to our "little brothers" who shout America with us !. Very often the slogans - China is with us! China is our friend and partner! You have to rely on yourself.
    1. Sergey Leonov_2
      Sergey Leonov_2 10 January 2022 22: 37
      -4
      No one has ever considered "Japan" as a geopolitical adversary. Of course there were tactical losses - this is + to the Japanese tactics. As a result - ... he is still in acupation under amers. Weird. And they are still at war with the successor of the USSR and do not want to sign a peace treaty. So think for yourself - whether the Japanese, or the Japanese under US control?
  37. Sergey Leonov_2
    Sergey Leonov_2 10 January 2022 22: 29
    -1
    Thank you for growing my comment into an article. And the article is really interesting. But: 1. Where "Russia is also not going to give up aviation atomic bombs, which are an important component in the arsenal of our military aviation" such bombs, can you give an example? 2. "so, the B61-12 bomb (B61 Mod 12) is not a" weapon of the 1960s "" - even if "Its mass production began in 1967." - this is certainly not the 60s. Well, yes, modernization for some is "... a perfect design, and over the past years, the technical and technological part of the bombs has changed little. The main design changes are aimed at increasing the level of reliability and safety. ..." And for the domestic military-industrial complex, this is exclusively " old "even with modernization. You really define the terminology then. And then for some it is a step forward, while for others it is marking time. 3. So what are the freely falling weapons in service with the RF with HRC? This is for comparison with the B61. And of course, what kind of tati carrier can use something with opposition. 4. What are the new smets bch without enrichment? Of course, I'm more of a 2-student in this regard, but elementary things are clear even to a poor student. Or have they invented something new? Well, tell me - all US nuclear technology is based solely on supplies from Russia. Uranium enrichment? "No, you haven't." The stump is clear that there is and goes, but here the competence gives, and from here and conclusions
  38. Alexey Sazonov
    Alexey Sazonov 10 January 2022 22: 49
    0
    The question is that with the replacement of Lithium-6 in the United States, the problems that are reflected in the article from 2015 at the link http://www.atominfo.ru/newsl/s0352.htm have been resolved
    If everything is so good, then why could they not build a plant for the production of IOC fuel for insane money and why hold on to the stock of Plutonium so much, probably there is no developed technology for reprocessing nuclear weapons. In addition, there is no cost-effective technology for enriching Uranium, using the technology of enrichment with a laser on the surface of cutting money, etc.
  39. Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim 11 January 2022 02: 45
    +4
    Excellent article!
    KVO 30m for KAB, with a gliding range of 120 km, just amazing!
    Do we have something similar in Russia?
  40. Edvid
    Edvid 14 January 2022 10: 28
    0
    //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    The Chinese have legally tested a type of nuclear device in the atmosphere (artificial sun)...
    By the way - <China has not ratified the much more significant and mostly supported by the world community "Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty">...
    ///////////////////////////
    After the recent high-profile statements in the world, in Russia it would be time to check the efficiency of its nuclear potential, half a century of tea has passed in inactivity. What if it is not working?.. That will be an incident!...
  41. zenion
    zenion 15 January 2022 17: 30
    -2
    American nuclear weapons do not meet Russian standards.
  42. Alien From
    Alien From 17 January 2022 17: 11
    +2
    I join all thanks to the author! Read in one breath! hi