Military Review

U.S. lagging behind in tactical nuclear weapons

106
U.S. lagging behind in tactical nuclear weapons

In the early 1950s, with the accumulation of nuclear weapons and their miniaturization, the US military leadership began to consider nuclear weapon as a means of armed struggle on the battlefield.


The use of a low-yield nuclear charge made it possible to create a gap in the enemy's defenses or to destroy a concentration of troops in places of concentration with one sudden blow. Over time, the United States lagged behind in tactical nuclear weapons.

In addition, after the loss of the "nuclear monopoly" in 1949, the Americans were well aware that the use of "strategic" nuclear charges against the USSR would immediately cause a retaliatory strike on the United States, and the local use of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) on the territory of third countries, within the framework of the doctrine " limited nuclear war”, gave hope for the possibility of avoiding a global “nuclear apocalypse”.

According to this doctrine, the use of tactical nuclear weapons was to be limited to a local territory outside the United States. As areas for the use of tactical nuclear weapons were considered: Western Europe, Korea, Indochina and Cuba.

History of the development of tactical nuclear weapons


At the first stage, free-fall bombs became the main type of tactical nuclear weapons, and tactical and carrier-based strike bombs became the delivery vehicles. aviation.

However, fighter-bombers had a number of significant drawbacks.

For example, the accuracy of bombing made it possible for friendly troops to strike safely only in the depths of the enemy’s defenses, the effectiveness of the use of combat aviation is directly dependent on the weather and time of day, and besides, combat aircraft are vulnerable to air defense systems.

The use of nuclear weapons directly on the battlefield required accurate, all-weather, mobile and compact delivery vehicles invulnerable to air defense.

Tactical (TR) and operational-tactical (OTR) missiles became such carriers.

In the 1950s–1970s, a number of rockets with engines operating on both solid and liquid fuels were created in the United States.

Rockets “Honest John”, “Little John”, “Sergeant”, “Corporal”, “Lacrosse”, “Lance” had rather high mobility, their accuracy allowed to strike blows at objects located near the line of military contact of troops.

Some of these missiles were placed at the disposal of the troops of NATO countries. For example, Lance missiles (launch range from nuclear warheads -120 km) were delivered to the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Belgium.

Following the agreements concluded by the United States with these countries, nuclear warheads in peacetime were stored at American bases in Europe, and in the event of an aggravation of the situation, they were transferred to the missile units of NATO allied countries.

Including it was supposed to transfer "neutron charges" intended to combat Soviet tank wedges. In the early 1980s, 380 neutron warheads for Lance missiles were manufactured.

In addition to tactical nuclear bombs and missiles, "atomic artillery" also developed. The miniaturization of nuclear charges made it possible to create "atomic shells" for artillery pieces.

In the first half of the 1950s, the army corps of the American army in Europe was reinforced with a 280-mm M65 "atomic weapon" with a T124 projectile (nuclear charge power 15 kt).

This gun could fire at a distance of up to 24 km, while half of the shells hit a circle with a diameter of 130 meters. However, due to excessive mass, long preparation time for use and poor mobility, the M65 gun was not in service for long.

In 1957, the 203-mm M422 artillery projectile with nuclear warheads was adopted, the power of which, depending on the modification, was 5–40 kt. Such shells could fire 203-mm serial self-propelled artillery mounts M55 and M110.

Especially for howitzers of the M110 type, at the end of the 1970s, the M753 active-rocket projectile with nuclear warheads with a power of up to 1,1 kt entered service. The nuclear warhead was made in two versions: with a "conventional" nuclear charge and with a nuclear charge, which has an increased neutron yield during the explosion.

In 1963, the 155-mm M454 projectile appeared, equipped with a W48 nuclear warhead with a power of 0,1 kt. In 1989, the 155-mm M785 projectile with a W82 nuclear warhead with a power of 1,5 kt was adopted. These shells could fire the most common NATO self-propelled 155-mm howitzers M109 and FH70, as well as towed 155-mm howitzers M114A1 and M198.

The lightest and most unusual weapons of "nuclear artillery" were the American "recoilless" of the Devi Crocket family: 120-mm M28 and 155-mm M29. In 1962, they entered service with US infantry divisions in Europe.

Both guns, firing the same M388 over-caliber projectile with a nuclear charge of up to 1 kt, were "close combat" systems. The firing range of the M28 was 2 km, the M29 could throw a projectile at 4 km.

In the 1960s, tactical nuclear weapons were distributed to all branches of the American armed forces.

In addition to offensive weapons, purely defensive systems were also equipped with nuclear warheads.

Thus, more than half of the anti-aircraft missiles of the Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules air defense systems deployed on American soil carried nuclear warheads. Bomark unmanned supersonic interceptors stationed in the USA and Canada were armed only with them.

Nuclear warheads were also equipped with aviation unguided rockets, which were intended to combat Soviet long-range bombers.

In Germany, a network of wells was created along transport routes for laying nuclear land mines. The command of the NATO military forces intended to reduce the pace of the advance of Soviet tanks rushing to the English Channel by creating impenetrable radioactive blockages.

Until the early 1970s, the United States significantly outnumbered the USSR in tactical nuclear weapons.

In the early 1980s, the Soviet Union gained a significant advantage in tactical nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. According to information published in open sources, at the end of the 1980s, there were about 22 tactical nuclear weapons in the Soviet armed forces.

After the end of the Cold War, the number of tactical nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia has decreased many times over.

Due to the fact that this category of nuclear weapons does not fall under any international agreements, the United States and Russia do not publish official statistics relating to this area. However, according to foreign experts, Russia is many times superior to the United States in terms of tactical nuclear weapons.

According to expert estimates, there are about 1 tactical warheads in Russia. First of all, these are free-falling nuclear bombs for Tu-900M22 / M3M, Su-3M and Su-24 aircraft, warheads for operational-tactical, cruise missiles and anti-missiles of the Moscow missile defense system, possibly nuclear depth charges and torpedoes. Most of the Russian tactical nuclear weapons are located in warehouses.

The Americans now have approximately 230 B61-3 and B-61-4 thermonuclear bombs in combat readiness. Another number of tactical thermonuclear bombs are in storage in the United States, waiting for their turn to be upgraded or disposed of.

Aircraft carriers of American tactical nuclear bombs



During the years of confrontation with the Warsaw Pact countries, a significant part of the fighter-bombers that were in service with the air forces of the NATO countries had the ability to carry nuclear weapons.

At the time of the collapse of the USSR, the main carriers of tactical bombs B61-3, B61-4, B61-10 (now in storage) and B57 (decommissioned) in the US Air Force were F-15E and F-16A / C fighter-bombers, as well as tactical F-111 bombers.

Until the early 1990s, nuclear bombs were available on American aircraft carriers, where the carrier-based attack aircraft A-6E, A-7E, anti-submarine aircraft S-3A / B and fighter-bombers F / A-18A / C were the means of delivery.

Currently, the task of combat use of tactical nuclear weapons is assigned to the F-15E and F-16C / D fighter-bombers belonging to the US Air Force Combat Air Command.

Also, A-10A / C attack aircraft were considered as carriers of tactical nuclear weapons. However, at the moment, due to a sharp reduction in the number of tactical nuclear bombs, attack aircraft pilots no longer conduct appropriate training.

The two-seat fighter-bomber F-15E Strike Eagle, which is now the main carrier of tactical nuclear weapons, was put into service in 1988. For that time, it was a very advanced combat aircraft capable of performing strike missions and conducting dogfights. Until 2001, 236 fighter-bombers were built by order of the US Air Force.


F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bomber with B61 inert bomb

Compared to purely fighter modifications of the F-15A / B / C / D, the F-15E fighter-bomber had a significantly larger fuel reserve, which increased the flight range, and improved avionics, which makes it possible to confidently fly a fighter at extremely low altitude in all weather conditions , day and night, to find and identify small-sized ground targets and use weapons of various classes on them.


It was almost possible to increase the fuel supply on the Strike Eagle compared to the two-seat combat training F-15B by almost two times, thanks to the use of conformal fuel tanks - non-resettable containers hung on the side surfaces of the fuselage. They closely adjoined the skin of the aircraft, and the gaps between the airframe and the tank were smoothed out with special elastic cuffs.

Such tanks slightly worsened the aerodynamics of the aircraft compared to traditional PTBs, allowing them to fly at a speed corresponding to 1,8 M. On the surface of the conformal tanks, missile and bomb armament hardpoints could be placed.

The maximum takeoff weight of the F-15E is 36 kg. The maximum speed is 740 km/h. Cruising - 2 km / h. Practical ceiling - 600 m. Combat radius without refueling when flying along a mixed profile with a PTB - 917 km. Ferry range - 18 km. A combat load weighing up to 300 kg is placed on nine external hardpoints.


The F-15E fighter-bomber can carry up to five nuclear bombs, but the standard load is two bombs.

At the time of adoption, the F-15E fighter-bomber could carry nuclear bombs of the B61 family, as well as tactical bombs B57 with a power of 5–20 kt.


Inert training analogue of the B57 nuclear bomb

Until the second half of the 1970s, the B57 bombs were the main nuclear weapon intended for delivery by tactical and carrier-based aircraft.

A total of 3 units were produced. The mass of the bomb, depending on the modification, was 100-230 kg. It was adapted to fly at supersonic speeds. The bomb body had a streamlined shape and solid thermal insulation.

In the mid-1990s, the bombs of the B57 family were removed from service. Under the conditions of international detente and the reduction of nuclear arsenals, they were supplanted by the more versatile B61.


Satellite image of Google Earth: F-15E fighter-bombers at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base

The first combat unit to receive the F-15E was the 4th Air Wing (regiment), deployed at the Seymour Johnson base in North Carolina. The 4th Air Wing now has four fighter squadrons.


Satellite image of Google Earth: F-15E fighter-bombers and KC-135R tanker aircraft at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base

To support the actions of fighter-bombers, they were given two wings of tanker aircraft KC-135R Stratotanker and KC-46A Pegasus.

Another US Air Force combat unit operating F-15E fighter-bombers is the 366th Air Wing stationed at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, consisting of two F-15E squadrons and one F-15SG squadron.


Fighter-bomber F-15SG of the 428th Fighter Squadron

It is reported that the F-15SG Strike Eagle aircraft of the 428th Fighter Squadron are intended for training pilots of the Singapore Air Force as part of the Peace Carvin V program, but mostly Americans fly them.


Satellite image of Google Earth: F-15E fighter-bombers at Lakenheath airbase

Since 1992, the F-15E fighter-bombers of the 492nd and 494th squadrons of the 48th Fighter Wing of the US Air Force have been based at the British airbase Lakenheath, located in Suffolk.


Satellite image of Google Earth: F-15E fighter-bombers at Buchel airbase

Several times a year, American F-15Es stationed at Lakenheath Air Base are deployed to European airfields of NATO countries during exercises. Most often these are air bases where American nuclear weapons are stored.


F-16CM fighters on the runway of the Spangdahl airbase

In addition to the F-15E, it is planned to use the F-16CM / DM Fighting Falcon multi-role fighters of the 480th fighter squadron of the 52nd air wing, stationed at the Spangdahl airbase, to deliver tactical nuclear bombs in Europe.


Satellite image of Google Earth: F-16CM / DM fighters at the Spangdahlem airbase

Upgraded single and double "Fighting Falcons" are capable of carrying up to three B61-3 and B-61-4 bombs, but in a real sortie, they will most likely hang only one. The combat radius of the F-16CM with one thermonuclear bomb without in-flight refueling is about 1 km.

American F-16CG/DG fighters are also based in northeast Italy. Two squadrons: 510th and 555th from the 31st Fighter Wing are deployed at Aviano Air Base.


Satellite image of Google Earth: F-16 fighters at Aviano airbase

In Turkey, the Incirlik airbase is permanently hosted by American units of the 39th Air Wing responsible for maintaining infrastructure, communications and security.


Satellite image of Google Earth: American F-16 and F-15 fighters at the Incirlik airbase

The US Air Force does not have combat flight squadrons assigned to the Turkish Incirlik airbase.

Although the Turkish leadership opposes the permanent deployment of American combat aircraft here, US Air Force fighters and refueling aircraft often land at the airbase. To supply the American contingent, C-17A Globemaster III military transport aircraft are used.


Satellite image of Google Earth: tanker aircraft KS-135 and military transport C-17A at the airbase Indzherlik

Carriers of American nuclear bombs in wartime can also be fighter-bombers of European NATO countries - Belgian and Dutch F-16A / B from Klein Brogel and Volkel air bases, German and Italian Tornado IDS and Tornado ECR (EA-200) from Büchel and Gedi.


German fighter-bomber Tornado IDS

In peacetime, tactical nuclear bombs stored at European air bases are guarded and maintained exclusively by US military personnel.


Satellite image of Google Earth: Tornado IDS fighter-bombers at Bühel airbase

In total, up to 80 bombs can be transferred to the allies in wartime. Activation codes will be broadcast only after the American command decides on the use of nuclear weapons.


Satellite image of Google Earth: Tornado ECR fighter-bombers at Gedi Air Base

To develop and maintain the skills of using B61 ​​thermonuclear bombs, Belgian, German and Dutch pilots, as part of the annual Steadfast Noon exercises, regularly train with inert mass-dimensional analogues painted in white and red, dropping them at test sites.

Until 2016, pilots of Turkish F-16C/D fighters took part in the "nuclear exercises". But at present, due to the aggravation of relations with the United States, the Turks are deprived of such an opportunity.

US tactical nuclear bomb storage sites


Unlike nuclear bombs intended for US strategic bombers, tactical bombs are not stored at fighter bomber bases on US soil.

It is known that the largest number of nuclear charges (about 2) at the disposal of the US Air Force are located in the arsenal and underground storage "Manzano" at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. This nuclear arsenal, its laboratory and storage facilities are managed by the US Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center.


Satellite image of Google Earth: nuclear arsenal at Kirtland Air Force Base

At the moment, the Manzano nuclear weapons storage facility is operated by the 498th "nuclear" air wing, which interacts with the Department of Energy. The duties of the personnel of the 498th Air Wing include the storage, repair and maintenance of nuclear weapons and individual components, as well as ensuring the safe handling of nuclear materials.


Maintenance of W80 thermonuclear warheads at the nuclear arsenal at Kirland Air Force Base

The Kirtland arsenal and nuclear storage facility has approximately 900 warheads (including tactical ones) that are part of the US Department of Defense's active stockpile, as well as up to 1 warheads awaiting disassembly at the Pentex Plant nuclear weapons plant in Texas.


Google Earth Satellite Image: Manzano Nuclear Warfare Storage at Kirtland Air Force Base

The Kirtland nuclear arsenal is built in a very convenient location. Amorillo airbase, located in close proximity to the Pentex Plant, is about an hour's flight with a tiltrotor CV-22 Osprey.


Such aircraft are in the 58th Wing of Special Operations, whose personnel are responsible for the protection and transportation of nuclear weapons, as well as the elimination of crisis situations.


Google Earth satellite image: CV-22 Osprey convertiplanes at Kirtland Air Force Base

In addition to convertiplanes, the fleet of the 58th Wing of Special Operations has UH-1N and HH-60 helicopters, as well as HC-130J and MC-130J aircraft.

Los Alamos National Laboratory is located 90 km north of Kirtland Air Force Base, the oldest and largest research and production organization in the American nuclear weapons industry. The proximity of this scientific center, which deals with the development of nuclear weapons and security issues, allows you to quickly resolve issues related to the storage and maintenance of nuclear charges.

Approximately 120-150 of the current 230 "active" tactical thermonuclear bombs are in storage in Europe at NATO air bases.


Most of the American nuclear bombs in Europe are located in the WS3 storage system - the lower underground level of highly secure aircraft shelters at six air bases in five countries.

Each storage can contain up to four nuclear bombs, which are located directly under the carrier aircraft and, if necessary, can be quickly brought into combat position and hung on the carrier. However, some bases have separate nuclear cellars.


Satellite image of Google Earth: storage of nuclear bombs at Lakenheath Air Force Base

According to information published in open sources, most of the American nuclear bombs are stored at the Turkish Incirlik airbase (up to 50 units).

There are 10-20 bombs each at air bases in other countries: in Belgium (Klein-Brogel air base), the Netherlands (Volkel air base), Germany (Büchel air base), Italy (Aviano and Gedi air bases).


The layout of the storage bases for American tactical nuclear bombs in Europe. Red triangles - active bases, blue - reserve

There are also reserve storage facilities with divisions for the protection and operation of nuclear bombs in the UK (Lakenheath Air Base - 33 shelters), Germany (Ramstein Air Base - 55 shelters) and Greece (Arakos Air Base - 11 shelters).

Prospects for improving American tactical nuclear weapons and their means of delivery


Currently, the F-15E fighter-bombers are in the twilight of their careers and will be decommissioned by 2030.

In 2021, there were approximately 200 aircraft in a capable and fit for quick recovery condition.

In the short term, the physically worn-out F-15Es should be replaced by other fighter-bombers.

One of the contenders for this role is the F-15EX Eagle II - created on the basis of the F-15QA fighter (Qatar Advanced - for the Qatar Air Force).


Fighter F-15EX

The F-15EX differs from previous modifications in an improved airframe with a resource of 20 flight hours and an updated composition of open architecture avionics. Conformal fuel tanks (as on the F-15E) provide increased range.

It is reported that the F-15EX two-seat fighter is capable of carrying the full range of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons available for the F-15C / D and F-15E aircraft. However, the Eagle II appears to be intended to replace the decommissioned 4th generation F-15C/D heavy air superiority fighters and is not currently being considered as a primary strike option.

Apparently, the 5th generation F-35A Lightning II fighter will become the main carrier of American tactical nuclear bombs. For the US Air Force alone, Lockheed Martin has built more than 2021 aircraft as of 230. In total, the US military department plans to purchase 1 F-763A fighters.


The maximum takeoff weight of the F-35A fighter reaches 29 kg. The maximum speed is 000 km/h. Combat load - up to 1 930 kg. The combat radius without PTB and refueling is 8 km.

By 2023, F-35A fighters equipped with avionics and Block 4 software should be able to carry B61-12 nuclear bombs. Two bombs can be placed in the inner compartments.


In the short term, the corrected B61-12 with adjustable explosion power should become the main American nuclear bomb: 0,3; 1,5; 10 and 50 ct.

The B61-12/61/3/4 nuclear bombs will be converted into the B7-10 modification. The Pantex Plant in Texas will repair or replace non-nuclear components. The plutonium assemblies for the B61-12 are planned to be mainly borrowed from the primary stages of the old B61 bombs that have passed the life extension program, the secondary stages with thermonuclear fuel will be new.


Test release of the B61-12 inert guided nuclear bomb from the F-15E aircraft

Due to the high accuracy of the hit and the possibility of dropping the bomb at a distance of up to 120 km from the target, it is expected to increase the effectiveness of strikes and reduce the vulnerability of the carrier.


Radar and electromechanical fuses, as well as the hardened body of the B61-12 bomb, make it possible to implement various scenarios for combat use. With an air blast, it is possible to defeat areal weakly protected targets, and when buried several meters into the ground, it is possible to destroy underground fortified objects.

The adoption of the B61-12 bomb and the decommissioning of the B61-3 and B61-4 bombs will require the renewal of the fighter-bomber fleet of NATO air forces participating in the Nuclear Sharing program.

It is known that the F-16 fighters available in Belgium and Holland, as well as the German and Italian Tornadoes, due to the incompatibility of software and avionics, will not be able to use new nuclear bombs. And this, most likely, will accelerate the transition to the American F-35A fighters.

However, all German Tornadoes should be decommissioned by 2025, and light fighters of the early F-16A series, even taking into account the passage of major repairs and modernization due to the exhaustion of the resource, must be replaced in the next 5-7 years.

The question arises about the advisability of deploying tactical nuclear bombs at the Turkish Incirlik air base.

As you know, deliveries of F-35A fighters to Turkey are blocked, and the unpredictability and inadequacy of the Turkish leadership makes the storage of American tactical nuclear weapons in Turkey unsafe.

Of course, the American thermonuclear bombs of the B61 family, like other modern ammunition of a similar purpose, have several degrees of protection, and if necessary, the electronic filling can be burned by giving it a special command, after which the bomb will be suitable only for the recycling of nuclear materials.


Satellite image of Google Earth: storage of nuclear bombs at Incirlik airbase

If the situation does not change dramatically, then with a high degree of probability the American tactical nuclear weapons from the Incirlik base will be evacuated in the near future. In this case, the most likely locations for the B61-12 bombs are Ramstein and Lakenheath air bases.

The US military is well aware of the weakness and lagging behind of its tactical nuclear arsenal, and in the past the US has repeatedly proposed to our country to conclude a treaty on the control and reduction of tactical nuclear weapons.

To compensate for Russia's superiority in this area, the United States plans to take a number of steps.

Taking into account the fact that fighter-bombers in the role of carriers of tactical nuclear weapons are vulnerable to air defense systems, other means of delivering tactical charges are being considered.

In addition to the adoption of the V61-12 high-precision glide bomb, which should replace most of the tactical and strategic bombs of the B61 family, UGM-133A Trident II submarine ballistic missiles with W76-2 warheads have been put on combat duty, the power of which has been reduced from 100 to 5– 6 ct.

There is information that, thanks to the introduction of new navigation equipment, the CEP of the W76-2 warheads has decreased several times compared to the original version of the W76, which allows them to be used for "surgical" strikes, both for strategic and tactical purposes.

In the American media, the topic of using low-yield charges against the DPRK and Iran has been repeatedly discussed.

Currently, the United States is developing a small-sized low-yield thermonuclear warhead (without a thermonuclear charge) designed for the next generation cruise missile.

A number of experts believe that new operational-tactical missiles developed as part of the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM - Precision Strike Missile) program can be equipped with a compact nuclear charge.

The firing range of the OTP PrSM can exceed 550 km, according to some estimates, it will reach 700–750 km.
Author:
Articles from this series:
"Powerlessness" of the US nuclear industry
"Rotten" US nuclear warheads
"Degradation" of American long-range bombers
106 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. YOUR
    YOUR 19 January 2022 04: 59
    +14
    More than a strange name
    U.S. lagging behind in tactical nuclear weapons
    what is the lag, where is the comparison, they simply listed where and what they have and some performance characteristics.
    So what's behind? By quantity, by performance characteristics by ...................?
    1. Toucan
      Toucan 19 January 2022 05: 24
      +10
      Quote: YOUR
      More than a strange name
      U.S. lagging behind in tactical nuclear weapons
      what is the lag, where is the comparison, they simply listed where and what they have and some performance characteristics.
      So what's behind? By quantity, by performance characteristics by ...................?

      Perhaps you didn't read very carefully?
      According to expert estimates, Russia has about 1 tactical warheads....

      Next
      The Americans now have approximately 230 B61-3 and B-61-4 thermonuclear bombs in combat readiness.

      Taking into account the fact that the Americans now do not have OTRK, but only tactical nuclear bombs, and we have 1900 charges, and they have only 230 - is this not a lag?
      Personally, I liked the article, I read it with great pleasure! Photos are awesome too! good
      1. mark1
        mark1 19 January 2022 07: 22
        +12
        Quote: Tucan
        but only tactical nuclear bombs, and we have 1900 charges, and they only have 230 - isn't this a lag?

        As I understand it, 230 tactical nuclear bombs (by the way, how does a tactical nuclear bomb differ from a strategic one, except for the place where it is dropped?), then only what is available in Europe and Turkey. And only in the form of bombs. At least 2300 TNWs in storage in the United States.
        Of our number of 1900 units, at least a few hundred for missile defense should be excluded from tactical nuclear weapons.
        Well, where is the "lag"?
        The topic is generally "slippery" due to secrecy, but most likely, at least parity.
        1. Toucan
          Toucan 19 January 2022 07: 31
          +2
          Quote: mark1
          As I understand it, 230 tactical nuclear bombs (by the way, how does a tactical nuclear bomb differ from a strategic one, except for the place where it is dropped?

          You misunderstand No. There are design differences between nuclear bombs for tactical launchers (fighter-bombers) and strategic launchers (long-range bombers).
          Although you are right about one thing, tactical carriers are quite capable of solving strategic tasks under certain conditions.
          1. YOUR
            YOUR 19 January 2022 13: 53
            +1
            What are the design differences?
            A smaller explosion equivalent and only, and strategic charges reduce power and increase the number of warheads in one carrier. It is much more efficient to use a dozen "small" warheads against a large target such as a city than one "large" one.
            Although this was also limited by OSV.
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 19 January 2022 14: 06
              +4
              Quote: YOUR
              What are the design differences?

              My husband quite intelligibly described this in one of the previous articles in the series.
              1. YOUR
                YOUR 19 January 2022 14: 11
                +1
                Thank you. Very lucidly explained.
            2. navycat777
              navycat777 5 March 2022 22: 23
              0
              Since there are now no restrictions for medium-range missiles, the use of several warheads instead of one with the same thrown weight is much more profitable and increases the area affected by a factor of
          2. mark1
            mark1 19 January 2022 18: 21
            -2
            Quote: Tucan
            Although you are right about one thing, tactical carriers are quite capable of solving strategic tasks under certain conditions.

            At the moment, quite "certain" conditions have developed at our western borders, and American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe simply must be included in the START-3 treaty or withdrawn (but ours is not)
        2. YOUR
          YOUR 19 January 2022 13: 49
          -5
          Quote: mark1
          The topic is generally "slippery" due to secrecy, but most likely, at least parity.

          Naturally, parity as long as the SALT Treaty is in effect. And such articles are about patriotic nonsense.
          By the way, here recently an article was about supposedly "rotten" American warheads.
          1. zyablik.olga
            zyablik.olga 19 January 2022 14: 04
            +9
            Quote: YOUR
            Naturally, parity as long as the SALT Treaty is in effect. And such articles are about patriotic nonsense.

            Didn't you notice that this "near-patriotic nonsense" and an article about "rotten" warheads were written by one author?
            In addition, you are deeply mistaken if you think that tactical nuclear weapons fall under the START treaty. No.
            1. YOUR
              YOUR 19 January 2022 14: 07
              -11
              Quote: zyablik.olga
              In addition, you are deeply mistaken if you think that tactical nuclear weapons fall under the START treaty

              The treaty does not distinguish between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
              1. zyablik.olga
                zyablik.olga 19 January 2022 14: 09
                +6
                Quote: YOUR
                The treaty does not distinguish between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

                I'm not my husband, he usually, when an opponent is obviously wrong, invites him to bet on a bottle of cognac. One of the comrades present on this thread has already lost a bet a couple of times.
                But I can make you the same offer. Want to?
                1. YOUR
                  YOUR 19 January 2022 14: 13
                  -4
                  Argue? About what? You just write what is wrong and that's it. Make references to relevant articles of the treaty. Delov then
                  1. zyablik.olga
                    zyablik.olga 19 January 2022 14: 16
                    +8
                    Quote: YOUR
                    Argue? About what? You just write what is wrong and that's it. Make references to relevant articles of the treaty. Delov then

                    There are no articles of the treaty concerning tactical nuclear weapons.
                    Also, you didn't read the article carefully. Among other things, it also says this:
                    Due to the fact that this category of nuclear weapons does not fall under any international agreements, the United States and Russia do not publish official statistics relating to this area. However, according to foreign experts, Russia is many times superior to the United States in terms of tactical nuclear weapons.

                    Apparently Seryozha was right when he wrote:
                    Quote: Bongo
                    there are too many photos in the publication, and against this background, not everyone is able to adequately absorb the text.
                    1. YOUR
                      YOUR 19 January 2022 14: 27
                      -6
                      The treaty makes no distinction between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. Just nuclear weapons and all.
                      I don’t understand why it’s so hard for you to type the SALT Treaty in a search engine and read it?
                      1. Bongo
                        19 January 2022 15: 53
                        +8
                        Quote: YOUR
                        I don’t understand why it’s so hard for you to type the SALT Treaty in a search engine and read it?

                        What is OSV? what
                        I know that the START treaties were signed.
                      2. YOUR
                        YOUR 20 January 2022 03: 41
                        -1
                        Limitation of Strategic Arms. But if he called it wrong, then you understand, then what are the problems.
                        And just now checked. You collect a SALT agreement with thousands of links, incl. and on START-3.
                        So what's the problem?
                        Here's what the contract doesn't cover
                        The Treaty does not apply to warheads in long-term storage.

                        All.
                    2. smaug78
                      smaug78 19 January 2022 22: 25
                      +4
                      However, according to foreign experts, Russia is many times superior to the United States in terms of tactical nuclear weapons.
                      Can you provide links please?
        3. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 19 January 2022 19: 39
          +2
          Quote: mark1
          how does a tactical nuclear weapon differ from a strategic one, except for the place where it is dropped?

          1. charge power,
          2. delivery method to the target,
          3. the consequences of nuclear weapons for the country-victim of the strike ...
          well, etc. yes
          1. mark1
            mark1 19 January 2022 20: 04
            0
            Twice no, once yes. That where you will figure it out yourself, I never doubt you.
    2. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 19 January 2022 05: 26
      -2
      Known in quantity.
      Russia must continue to maintain this imbalance in the event of a war with NATO.
      And then in this organization there are too many members divorced ... each needs several dozen warheads for admonishment from rash acts.
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 19 January 2022 06: 12
        0
        Quote: Lech from Android.
        for enlightenment

        The fact is that the concept is being promoted in the West that a local nuclear war is quite possible and does not carry any special risks for the planet. The range of tactical nuclear weapons is small, losses and destruction are minimal and go ahead, guys!
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. ViacheslavS
          ViacheslavS 19 January 2022 18: 08
          +1
          Where is this concept being promoted? Maybe the situation is completely different in the whole thing, that in the West and in the USA they would not be against the reduction of all nuclear weapons (the only thing that stops is that the genie can no longer be driven back into the bottle). Nuclear weapons are now a bone in the throat of NATA / USA, Russia, China can lose in conventional weapons, fleet, economy, but nuclear weapons absolutely outweigh everything.
      2. YOUR
        YOUR 19 January 2022 13: 54
        -3
        Try reading the SALT-3 Treaty. Everything is painted there, who has what and how much
        1. Bongo
          19 January 2022 15: 50
          +8
          Quote: YOUR
          Try reading the SALT-3 Treaty. Everything is painted there, who has what and how much

          You are wrong! No.
          How does the Limitation Treaty STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE WEAPONS regulates TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
          The Americans have repeatedly tried in the past to impose a treaty on the limitation of tactical nuclear weapons on our country.
          Russia does not benefit from treaties on the limitation of tactical nuclear weapons. In this regard, tactical nuclear weapons are still not covered by international treaty norms. There is no exchange of information on the quantitative composition and development of new types of tactical nuclear weapons. There are no restrictions on the geographical distribution of tactical nuclear weapons.
          1. YOUR
            YOUR 20 January 2022 03: 54
            0
            Well let it be so. I don't want to get into further controversy. It's possible that I misunderstood something.
    3. Bongo
      19 January 2022 05: 56
      +13
      Quote: YOUR
      where is the lag, where is the comparison ...

      Probably, this is still my mistake, there are too many photos in the publication, and against this background, not everyone is able to adequately absorb the text. request
      I don't know how many TNW units Russia has deployed in Europe, but the Americans definitely have no more than 150 nuclear air bombs, the storage locations of which are well known.
      In any case, taking into account Russian aircraft carriers, OTRK and KR, we are many times superior to the United States in Europe in terms of tactical nuclear weapons.
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 19 January 2022 06: 00
        0
        In the USSR there were 46000 nuclear charges .....
        1. Bongo
          19 January 2022 06: 07
          +8
          Quote: Uncle Lee
          In the USSR there were 46000 nuclear charges .....

          Tactical or all?
          Did you read it?
          https://topwar.ru/190674-bessilie-jadernoj-promyshlennosti-ssha.html
          1. Uncle lee
            Uncle lee 19 January 2022 10: 32
            +3
            Total?
            Sufficient amount!
            1. Bongo
              19 January 2022 11: 12
              +5
              Quote: Uncle Lee
              Sufficient amount!

              For what?
              In this article, we are talking specifically about TNW, and the number of charges you indicated is the total number of TNW + SNF warheads.
              The graph you presented was in my recent post: "Powerlessness" of the US nuclear industry
              https://topwar.ru/190674-bessilie-jadernoj-promyshlennosti-ssha.html
              1. Uncle lee
                Uncle lee 19 January 2022 11: 58
                +1
                Quote: Bongo
                For what?

                For a normally functioning nuclear shield ... Yes, these are all tactical nuclear weapons + nuclear weapons, without division into functions. I found the chart on the Internet. hi
      2. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 19 January 2022 06: 14
        +1
        Quote: Bongo
        in terms of tactical nuclear weapons, we are many times superior to the United States in Europe.

        May be.
        Only for the USA it is not cold, not hot.
        But the natives will fry each other ....
        And for us they are just as dangerous as strategic ones, because they will fly to any point in our country.
        Again, in addition to Europe, we also need to keep a reserve for the south and east.
        1. Bongo
          19 January 2022 06: 19
          +7
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          Only for the USA it is not cold, not hot.
          But the natives will fry each other ....

          Maybe they don't care about the "natives", but in addition to the "native" troops, more than 60 thousand American military personnel are stationed in Europe, there are several air and naval bases, air defense and missile defense facilities.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Kalmar
        Kalmar 19 January 2022 09: 50
        +5
        Quote: Bongo
        In any case, taking into account Russian aircraft carriers, OTRK and KR, we are many times superior to the United States in Europe in terms of tactical nuclear weapons.

        Will there be a similar article about Russian tactical nuclear weapons? The thesis about our superiority is often heard, but it is not clear what kind of products are available. Well, i.e. it is clear that there are missile defense missiles with nuclear warheads, the fleet has a certain number of old nuclear-powered anti-ship missiles. Whether more modern missile systems (the same Iskanders and Onyxes) receive nuclear warheads is already unknown. Or is it all kept secret?
        1. Wildcat
          Wildcat 19 January 2022 10: 14
          +8
          Will there be a similar article about Russian tactical nuclear weapons?
          there is already such an article, IMHO.

          275 Article. Treason
          High treason, i.e. committed by a citizen of the Russian Federation espionage, issuance to a foreign state, international or foreign organization or their representatives of information constituting a state secret, trusted face or known to him at work, work, study or otherwiseprovided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation, or providing financial, logistical, consulting or other assistance to a foreign state, international or foreign organization or their representatives in activities directed against the security of the Russian Federation -
          the applicable sentence is deprivation of liberty for a term of from twelve to twenty years, with a fine in the amount of up to five hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of the wage or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to three years or without it, and with restriction of liberty for a term of up to two years.
          1. dzvero
            dzvero 19 January 2022 11: 08
            +8
            there is already such an article, IMHO.

            275 Article. Treason

            Offset smile
            But there is also open information. True, there is not much of it, especially performance characteristics and photographic materials, but even I can sketch offhand what was developed and put into service in the USSR in the field of tactical nuclear weapons:
            torpedoes for submarines
            warheads for missiles
            warheads for KR and IRBM
            warheads for anti-ship missiles
            portable "nuclear bombs"
            nuclear gravity bombs smile
            large-caliber artillery shells, mines
            warheads for large-caliber MLRS
            But about what is in service at the moment, the place of storage, the military unit where it is deployed or will be deployed, the organization of delivery to the military unit, the conditions for use, etc., there is no free information from the word at all and is unlikely to be.
            But PMSM, even a historical overview of what was going to be extremely interesting.
            1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 19 January 2022 20: 03
          +3
          Quote: Kalmar
          the fleet has a number of old nuclear-powered anti-ship missiles.

          (Look, my friend, so that they don’t let you in on the salad! Squid, do you understand .. (c)
          1. The fleet is armed with not only "old anti-ship missiles", but also quite new ones in special equipment.
          2. In addition to anti-ship missiles, the fleet is armed with SLBMs (well, at least Sineva and Bulava, as well as Liner, etc.)
          3. The fleet has quite decent underwater weapons: deep nuclear weapons, torpedoes with SBP, as well as the famous VA-111, (and even in a new incarnation ...)
          Therefore, not knowing the ford, do not go into the water!
          Quote: Kalmar
          Or is it all kept secret?
          Clever people, admitted by the nature of their service to these issues, never, even in the family circle, talk about these topics ... really on the site with "rogues from the Internet" they will rinse this closed topic? Or do you have a different opinion, naive Chukchi boy!? bully
          1. Wildcat
            Wildcat 19 January 2022 21: 37
            +2
            hi
            (Look, my friend, so that they don’t let you in on the salad! Squid, do you understand .. (c)

            Rather, they will “dry”, “salt out” and let them “under the beer”, washing the capture of the “traitor”.
            1.
            quite new in special equipment.
            No, I wrote below why. But, IMHO, the question is interesting, how quickly they can appear.
            2. Yes, the variety of models is our "everything" ...
            3.
            The fleet has quite decent underwater weapons: deep nuclear weapons, SBP torpedoes, as well as the famous VA-111, (and even in a new incarnation...)
            also no...

            Clever people, admitted by the nature of their service to these issues, never, even in the family circle, talk about these topics ... really on the site with "rogues from the Internet" they will rinse this closed topic? Or do you have a different opinion, naive Chukchi boy!? bully
            - absolutely agree!
      5. Hypertension
        Hypertension 19 January 2022 12: 42
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        I don’t know how many TNW units Russia has deployed in Europe, but the Americans definitely have no more than 150 nuclear bombs

        However... I don't know how many Russia has, but how many the Americans have - "definitely no more than 150".
        And the option that the Americans are lying about the quantity is not taken into account?
        1. Bongo
          19 January 2022 15: 40
          +4
          Quote: Hyperion
          And the option that the Americans are lying about the quantity is not taken into account?

          Extremely unlikely No. Especially considering the fact that tactical bombs are stored on the territory of NATO countries.
          1. Hypertension
            Hypertension 19 January 2022 17: 32
            +2
            Quote: Bongo
            Especially considering the fact that tactical bombs are stored on the territory of NATO countries.

            Here, in the table for 2012, in Europe there are approximately 180 B61 units of various modifications. Only about 600 "active". Including storage in the USA. In 2012, it was also planned to rivet 400 units of B61-12.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20130130145300/http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/images/b61data.jpg
            Here, at the link (for 2016), they write the following:
            Today, experts (including those from the Federation of American Scientists, FAS) estimate the number of US nuclear bombs in Europe and Turkey at 150-200. These are B-61 type bombs with a total capacity of 18 megatons. They are located at six air bases: in Germany (Büchel, more than 20 pieces), Italy (Aviano and Gedi, 70-110 pieces), Belgium (Kleine Brogel, 10-20 pieces), the Netherlands (Volkel, 10-20 pieces) and Turkey (Incirlik, 50-90 pieces).

            https://tass.ru/info/3549521
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 19 January 2022 20: 18
              -1
              Quote: Hyperion
              These are B-61 type bombs capacity of 18 megatons.

              Andrey! And you still trust SUCH sources?
              Although you yourself correctly bring the maximum power of the B-61 product - up to 170 KILO tons !!!
              1. Hypertension
                Hypertension 19 January 2022 22: 42
                +2
                And what is wrong? General with a capacity of 18 Mt. That is, in aggregate. The bombs have a variable power from 0.3 to 170 kt., if we talk about those deployed in Europe. 150-200 bombs of ~100 kt. and give such a total power.
      6. YOUR
        YOUR 19 January 2022 13: 55
        0
        An interesting article I read with pleasure. The name is perhaps the only problem.
      7. YOUR
        YOUR 20 January 2022 03: 59
        +1
        Well, I can not adequately assimilate the text.
        Explain to me the inadequacy without undue self-conceit how TNW differs from SNW
        Quote: Bongo
        I don't know how many TNW units Russia has deployed in Europe

        and right there
        Quote: Bongo
        In any case, taking into account Russian aircraft carriers, OTRK and KR, we are many times superior to the United States in Europe in terms of tactical nuclear weapons.

        Don't feel like you're contradicting yourself.
  2. Kaufman
    Kaufman 19 January 2022 06: 14
    +2
    Good article, the author worked
  3. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 19 January 2022 06: 42
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    in addition to the "native" troops, more than 60 thousand American military personnel are stationed in Europe,

    This is about as much as they lost in Vietnam.
    Unpleasant, yes, but definitely not fatal. Paying for stretching our front.
    They will cry and survive.
    And for us, their bombs are a threat to our territory.
  4. Soldatov V.
    Soldatov V. 19 January 2022 07: 04
    -12
    The main danger of small and ultra-small nuclear warheads is their small dimensions, and hence the possibility of stealing them. They write in the media that well-trained militants penetrated the west under the guise of refugees. For them, the possession of such a bomb would be just the way. Does the US now have real control and protection of nuclear bombs abroad? Can their allies provoke Russia by detonating a small nuclear warhead on their territory, for example, in Poland.
    Another question is what will happen if, let's say the United States took out all the atomic bombs on its territory? Now they are facing a race war between whites and blacks, or between Trump and Biden, no temptation to blackmail each other? soldier
    1. Toucan
      Toucan 19 January 2022 07: 36
      +6
      Quote: V.
      The main danger of small and ultra-small nuclear warheads is their small size, and hence the possibility of stealing them.

      What specific charges are you talking about, B61 bombs?

      Quote: V.
      They write in the media that well-trained militants penetrated the west under the guise of refugees. For them, the possession of such a bomb would be just the way.

      You have very superficial ideas about what needs to be done to activate a modern nuclear weapon.
      1. Soldatov V.
        Soldatov V. 19 January 2022 09: 04
        -10
        This is your surface view. I spent a year and a half on duty in a mine with a ballistic missile. soldier
        1. Toucan
          Toucan 19 January 2022 09: 34
          +5
          I believe, conscript. yes But regarding nuclear warheads, you are heresy.
        2. Kalmar
          Kalmar 19 January 2022 09: 54
          +7
          Quote: V.
          This is your surface view. I spent a year and a half on duty in a mine with a ballistic missile

          And how did you manage to activate it? ))
          In general, a familiar rocket man told a story about one officer of the Strategic Missile Forces, who, while on duty, studied the control panel diagram and allegedly found a way to launch a rocket without orders "from above." I doubt that everything was just like that, of course, but it's funny)
          1. Soldatov V.
            Soldatov V. 19 January 2022 10: 14
            -8
            Stupid question, why should we or I activate the warhead, I'm not a monkey with a grenade. I don’t want, and I can’t, comment on the bike about the officer of the Strategic Missile Forces. Everything that happens there must remain a secret. My complex is still in service.
            The main thing is that the Strategic Missile Forces will not let you down.
            About the activation of small nuclear weapons. As one coachman from one of my favorite films used to say - "Everything that is made by a person can always be broken by another person" soldier
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 19 January 2022 20: 27
            +2
            Quote: Kalmar
            a familiar rocket man told a story about one officer of the Strategic Missile Forces, who, while on duty, studied the control panel diagram and allegedly found a way to launch a rocket without orders "from above".

            Colleague! It may be possible to launch a "rocket" (as an option - an emergency drop of SLBMs overboard), but after a mortar launch (let's blow up the PAD, for example), this firewood will fall like a pig somewhere. And the maximum that can be squeezed out of this situevina is r / a pollution of the area by the components of the fuse ... EVERYTHING! yes
        3. Bongo
          19 January 2022 15: 39
          +3
          Quote: V.
          This is your surface view. I spent a year and a half on duty in a mine with a ballistic missile.

          Have you worked with combat blocks?
          1. Soldatov V.
            Soldatov V. 19 January 2022 17: 54
            -1
            Only officers work with warheads, and only officers also launch. Soldiers are the protection of the perimeter, marking the passages of the minefield, tea, coffee at lunchtime for engineers, admission to the facility for maintenance.
            Almost all the officers were in Cuba during the crisis, they told interesting stories. They asked us to cook soup, cook cabbage soup in exchange for canned food, dry rations, cigarettes. They fed us well, but we cooked ourselves, I was lucky my electrician, a miner from Kuzbass, was an excellent cook.
            That is why all the fixations on blocks, bombs, how to activate them, unfortunately, all this is on the Internet. And the Americans and we are all the same.
            But our sense of duty is higher, though it was the USSR then. soldier
        4. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 19 January 2022 20: 21
          +4
          Quote: V.
          I spent a year and a half on duty in a mine with a ballistic missile.

          A conscript soldier is power !!!
          Especially if you didn't study physics at school... laughing
          1. Soldatov V.
            Soldatov V. 20 January 2022 10: 07
            -3
            I don't understand what's funny. In the Strategic Missile Forces, then, as a rule, they did not call up with less than 10 classes. More than half had a technical school behind them. After training, as a rule, they occupied the positions of ensigns, which were not enough. In the regiment, in training sessions, they explained the physics of a nuclear explosion, damaging factors, protection against them, chemical protection, a personal sensor (I don’t remember the correct name) of radioactivity, assistance to a person affected by radiation, they had the highest category in electrics (5 or 6)
            The sergeant was paid 30 rubles. We went to the soldier's tearoom almost every day. The menu is like in a good factory canteen. Everyday uniform was changed every six months, boots after eight months. Everyone went to the demobilization wearing officer hats. Relations with officers are generally friendly.
            For violations during combat duty, not a disbat, but criminal liability from two or three years to nine years. Heels were not clicked, but the discipline was at the level, taking into account personal responsibility at a combat post. soldier
  5. Undecim
    Undecim 19 January 2022 08: 39
    +7
    Currently, the United States is developing a small-sized low-yield thermonuclear warhead (without a thermonuclear charge) designed for the next generation cruise missile.

    Here the author messed up a little with both development and warheads. This does not mean the development of new warheads, but another "reconstruction" of the old warheads W80 mod. 1, of which 1750 units were produced and which have not gone away, but for some reason, they are not mentioned in the article. The W80 warhead was equipped with the AGM-86, ALCM and AGM-129 ACM cruise missiles.
    For the new Long Range Stand Off Weapon (LRSO) cruise missiles, it is planned to extend the service life of approximately 500 W80-1 warheads. This version is designated as W80-4.
    1. Bongo
      19 January 2022 10: 47
      +3
      Quote: Undecim
      Here the author messed up a little with both development and warheads

      American sources write specifically about the development of a new small-sized warhead.
      Quote: Undecim
      This does not mean the development of new warheads, but another "reconstruction" of the old warheads W80 mod. 1, of which 1750 units were produced and which have not gone away, but for some reason they are not mentioned in the article.

      Victor, hello! hi
      Mentioned here:
      https://topwar.ru/190845-sgnivshie-jadernye-boegolovki-ssha.htm

      Have you remembered?
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 19 January 2022 11: 50
        +5
        Hello Sergey! I didn’t forget, therefore I noticed that you ignored a warhead with a yield of 5 to 150 kilotons in an article on tactical nuclear weapons.
        As for the new warhead, I specifically revised the sources for the last two years, but apart from the W93 development, there is no information about other new developments. As for the W 93, there is practically no reliable information about its design. But given the fact that it is planned to re-equip the Navy's ballistic missiles, it is unlikely to be a tactical munition. Although the Americans headed for the universalization of charges. In any case, there is practically no information for any conclusions.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 19 January 2022 20: 46
          +1
          Quote: Undecim
          As for the W 93, there is practically no reliable information about its design. But given the fact that it is planned to re-equip the Navy's ballistic missiles, it is unlikely to be a tactical munition.

          Colleague, I welcome you!
          Ams are now sawing a new product that is not childish, W88 / Alt-370. They showed only the appearance, and what is characteristic - the "container" of the product is heat-resistant ...

          And this is what the "container" of the new beater looks like...

          Although earlier everything was much simpler:

          And why would all this??? recourse
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 19 January 2022 21: 21
            +5
            And this is how the "container" of the new beater looks like ..

            This is a shipping container, without any quotes. The warhead itself looks like this.

            I did not go into details, I will have to look through.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 19 January 2022 21: 54
              +1
              Agree: the difference with "carrots" is striking ...
              Clearly does not imply breeding in the upper atmosphere. Apparently they will drag it closer to the object of impact. Accuracy will increase, but the probability of being hit by a missile defense system will increase - the EPR increases significantly. A good target for the S-500 will be., However...
              Yes, wow...
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 19 January 2022 22: 28
                +3
                but the risk of injury will increase.

                Base diameter - 460 mm. It will be difficult to hit such a target.
  6. Pushkowed
    Pushkowed 19 January 2022 08: 43
    0
    The first article in this series where the first word in the title is not in quotation marks...
  7. Operator
    Operator 19 January 2022 09: 02
    +1
    The American concept of tactical nuclear charges with a capacity of 1 ktn and weighing from 40 kg in the dimensions of a 155-mm artillery projectile is initially flawed - the amount of plutonium required is the same as for a two-stage thermonuclear charge, and the output power of the shock wave is 20 times less (at least ).

    The second stage of neutron munitions is loaded with tritium, which costs from 10 million US dollars and more, i.e. an order of magnitude more than the entire thermonuclear munition with lithium deuteride of comparable mass. At the same time, tritium has to be completely replaced every three to four years due to its spontaneous decay into deuterium. In this connection, neutron ammunition was withdrawn from service.

    Tactical charges with a power of up to 50 ktn are single-stage nuclear and therefore "dirty" - they do not have a second thermonuclear stage, which burns out radioactive elements of the first stage with its neutrons (including unreacted plutonium, whose share is up to 99% for low-yield charges).

    Two-stage thermonuclear charges with a power of 100 ktn or more are "clean" (leave a small number of short-lived elements after the explosion, burn out all unreacted plutonium with neutrons). The minimum weight of such charges is about 100 kg, the diameter is 30 cm, which allows them to be placed in a large number of ammunition - NURS, UR, SAM, air bombs, torpedoes, etc.

    During the explosion of a 100 ktn two-stage thermonuclear munition in the air at a height of 1,5 km above the neutrons from the explosion are quenched in the air and induced radiation in the soil also does not occur. With such ammunition in the form of warhead OTR "Iskander", 300-mm NURS and 250-kg gliding bombs, the RA will destroy targets in the depths of the enemy's defense and sow the strips of its breakthrough on the territory of the European countries of NATO and their allies using the square-nested method.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 19 January 2022 09: 58
      +5
      Quote: Operator
      The American concept of tactical nuclear charges with a capacity of 1 ktn and a weight of 40 kg in the dimensions of a 155-mm artillery projectile is initially flawed

      Apparently, for this reason, with the advent and development of guided missiles, such nuclear weapons were abandoned: there is an order of magnitude less fuss with the WTO, and it can be used in any conflict without any hesitation.

      In our country, they say, nuclear shells for 2S4 and 2S7 gun mounts are still buried somewhere "just in case", but this is inaccurate.
  8. KKND
    KKND 19 January 2022 09: 10
    0
    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    The combat radius of the F-16CM with one thermonuclear bomb without in-flight refueling is about 1 km.

    Here is an error, the maximum combat radius of the F-16CM with fuel tanks is approximately 800 km.
    1. Toucan
      Toucan 19 January 2022 09: 40
      +5
      Quote: KKND
      Here is an error, the maximum combat radius of the F-16CM with fuel tanks is approximately 800 km.

      Combat radius: F-16C Block 50
      - with conformal tanks, 3 l in PTB, 940x2 kg of bombs, along the profile large-small-small-high: 907 km
      - with conformal tanks, 5 l in PTB, 542x2 kg of bombs, along the profile large-small-small-high: 907 km
      - without conformal tanks, 3 l in PTB, 940xAIM-2, 120? AIM-2, air patrol: 9 km
      1. Operator
        Operator 19 January 2022 12: 45
        -9
        According to Western analytics, all tactical aviation (airplanes and helicopters) in the course of a large-scale nuclear conflict in the European theater of operations will fail within the first hour of hostilities due to pilots being blinded in both eyes from frequent explosions of nuclear weapons.

        So the carriers of nuclear bombs F-15, F-16, F-35, "Tornado" and "Rafali" will fall to the ground before they overcome the first 900 km to the target.
        1. Toucan
          Toucan 19 January 2022 13: 26
          +6
          Quote: Operator
          So the carriers of nuclear bombs F-15, F-16, F-35, "Tornado" and "Rafali" will fall to the ground before they overcome the first 900 km to the target.

          Can you drop them mid-flight with your mind? wassat
          1. Operator
            Operator 19 January 2022 14: 41
            -8
            Blinded pilots will do it for me.

            Ah, I understand - you are sure that NATO pilots are trained to grow new eyes with the power of NATO thought laughing
            1. Toucan
              Toucan 19 January 2022 15: 18
              +6
              Quote: Operator
              I understand - you are sure that NATO pilots are trained to grow new eyes with the power of NATO thought

              No, I'm sure you're a big dreamer.
              1. Operator
                Operator 19 January 2022 19: 05
                -8
                You are inattentive - these are the "fantasies" of Western analysts (whom I trust, but you do not).
              2. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 19 January 2022 20: 53
                +1
                Quote: Tucan
                No, I'm sure you're a big dreamer.

                But, I must admit, with HUMOR !!!
                For this I gave him a plus! fellow
                1. zyablik.olga
                  zyablik.olga 20 January 2022 02: 42
                  +5
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  For this I gave him a plus!

                  In vain! This "operator" is known not only as a great storyteller, who is absolutely not responsible for his words, but also as a Natsik. He has been repeatedly banned for inciting ethnic hatred and promoting racism.
        2. Bongo
          19 January 2022 15: 38
          +8
          Quote: Operator
          So the carriers of nuclear bombs F-15, F-16, F-35, "Tornado" and "Rafali" will fall to the ground before they overcome the first 900 km to the target.

          Of course, they will fall, but only after the Caliber and Kh-34 appear on the Su-35 and Su-32S. After all, it was you, Andrey, who claimed that these aircraft are carriers of these missiles. wassat
          And how are the ZGRLS built by the Chinese on the alluvial islands doing there? wink
          1. Operator
            Operator 19 January 2022 18: 59
            -10
            How are things going with your understanding of the Russian language and materiel - when you stopped distinguishing Russian air-launched missiles with a launch range of several hundred kilometers (outside the enemy air defense zone) from American bombs with a free fall range of several km (within the air defense zone enemy)?

            And yes - foreign analysts were talking not only about light flashes from explosions of nuclear warheads of anti-aircraft missiles and air-to-air missiles of the enemy, but about light flashes from explosions of all types of nuclear weapons (including their own) on the path of combat flights of tactical aircraft and helicopters in the first hours of a local nuclear conflict in a specific European theater.

            So the numerical superiority of NATO countries in tactical aviation, combined with air bombs, will play a cruel joke on these countries in a local nuclear conflict - given the numerical superiority of the Russian Armed Forces in short and medium-range missiles, including cruise and aeroballistic ones.

            Better learn Russian and materiel, your mother bully
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 20 January 2022 02: 05
              +3
              Quote: Operator
              How are things going with your understanding of the Russian language and materiel - when you stopped distinguishing Russian air-launched missiles with a launch range of several hundred kilometers (outside the enemy air defense zone) from American bombs with a free fall range of several km (within the air defense zone enemy)?

              Another blah blah blah ... wassat Admit that you are simply not capable of answering for your words, and when you are pinned to the wall, you try to chat your opponent with a set of meaningless phrases. fool
              1. Operator
                Operator 20 January 2022 02: 13
                -7
                To you, as a specialist in cutting and sewing, everything else seems to be a "set of meaningless phrases" laughing
                1. zyablik.olga
                  zyablik.olga 20 January 2022 02: 17
                  +4
                  Quote: Operator
                  To you, as a specialist in cutting and sewing, everything else seems to be a "set of meaningless phrases"

                  Cutting frank nonsense and sewing patriotic nonsense is your only specialty. Despite the fact that my husband has a very good salary, I own a service center and sell telecommunications equipment and earn several times more than him. wink
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 20 January 2022 03: 23
                    -6
                    Got it - you are a businesswoman in life with the attitude "I'm the boss, you're a fool" (C) laughing
                    1. zyablik.olga
                      zyablik.olga 20 January 2022 05: 06
                      +4
                      Quote: Operator
                      Got it - you are a businesswoman in life with the attitude "I'm the boss, you're a fool" (C) laughing

                      Yes, I really don't like smart people! yes But I have even, sometimes friendly relations with my subordinates, because I don’t keep fools. wink
  9. dzvero
    dzvero 19 January 2022 09: 35
    +9
    The author again turned out a great review. Only one point is mentioned in passing - the level of decision-making on the use, especially in the threatening period, when the YaBZ have already been "distributed", but the "hot phase" has not yet begun. EMNIP in the 62nd in Cuba, the use of nuclear weapons was at the discretion of the commander of the troops on the island, gene. Pliev. I read that with the advent of small-sized YaBZs in 5 "/5" calibers, the level dropped to a regimental commander / commander. And in the early 70s, apparently there was an unspoken dispute between the USSR and the USA, and the threshold for making a decision on the use of tactical nuclear weapons increased sharply. I wonder how things are now?
  10. Wildcat
    Wildcat 19 January 2022 10: 05
    +4
    hi
    Great article, great illustrations as always!
    good
    I will post the legendary photo from Folkel, where the Americans rolled out the bomb service truck and opened the gates of WS3.
  11. Wildcat
    Wildcat 19 January 2022 11: 20
    +4
    "At the British airbase Lakenheath, located in Suffolk, since 1992, F-15E fighter-bombers of the 492nd and 494th squadrons of the 48th Fighter Wing of the US Air Force have been based on a permanent basis."
    Several photos of F15 from 494, comfortable fuel tanks with hardpoints are clearly visible:




  12. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 19 January 2022 19: 34
    +3
    A good, informative article with a set of historical, factual and (as far as possible in the field of nuclear weapons) "intelligence" material.
    But there are two remarks on the essence of the material:
    1.
    Currently, the United States is developing a small-sized low-yield thermonuclear warhead (without a thermonuclear charge) designed for the next generation cruise missile.
    Here the author is somewhat inaccurate: he confused "charge" and "fuse". The thing is that the Yankees are concerned about the creation of a "clean" SBP with a power of up to 10 kT without a plutonium "fuse", the role of which is most likely to be "entrusted" to a compact high-power laser, possibly an explosive type (as in SDI) to ignite lithium deuterite and initiate thermonuclear fusion reaction...
    The bottom line: a powerful explosion, but there are no fragments of r / a! Radiation - no! Only seismic sensors, hydrocarbon pressure sensors work, but radiation ones do not ... Doubts: is it a nuclear explosion? Maybe again "saltpeter" in the port of Beirut exploded? This is one.
    2.
    Until the early 1990s, nuclear bombs were available on American aircraft carriers, where the carrier-based attack aircraft A-6E, A-7E, anti-submarine aircraft S-3A / B and fighter-bombers F / A-18A / C were the means of delivery.
    Currently, the task of combat use of tactical nuclear weapons is assigned to the F-15E and F-16C / D fighter-bombers belonging to the US Air Force Combat Air Command.

    From this fragment, a false impression of the "denuclearization" of AVU can be formed. But it's not. These floating airfields still carry the SBP, and are still the "reserve" of the US strategic nuclear forces. Moreover, work has begun on the return to service of the CRBD after their radical modernization, included in the Pentagon's financial plan, starting from FY2022. of the year. F / A-18E / F are also being upgraded and purchased.
    , as well as the latest F-35С, which are capable of carrying SBPs.
    3.
    ballistic missiles of UGM-133A Trident II submarines with W76-2 warheads were put on combat duty, the power of which was reduced from 100 to 5–6 kt.
    ... thanks to the introduction of new navigation equipment, the KVO of the W76-2 warheads has decreased several times compared to the original version of the W76, which allows them to be used for "surgical" strikes, for both strategic and tactical purposes.
    The topic of using low-power charges has been repeatedly discussed in the American media against North Korea and Iran.
    Two SSBNs (Tennessee and Alaska) received 2 such SLBMs with combat equipment in the form of W76-2 with a capacity of 5-8 kT. In 2019, Pantax (Texas) produced 20 units of W76-2. Dividing them into 4 carriers, we get that 1 Trident carries 5 such BBs. This is a full-fledged detachment of forces for a single situation of a "limited" nuclear strike from the sea. This is really dangerous. But such a blow obviously cannot solve "strategic" goals. This will most likely be the prelude to a big BAD BOOM. And this is no longer climbing into any gate.
    Once again I want to testify to the author my respect and respect. The article is definitely "+"! good
    1. Wildcat
      Wildcat 19 January 2022 21: 27
      +3
      hi
      1. Wow!
      2.
      This fragment may give a false impression of the "denuclearization" of AVU
      The way it is. In 1993-1994, both nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons maintenance groups were removed from aircraft carriers. The US Navy itself does not want anything but nuclear weapons on strategic carriers, but if "need forces" IMHO, they will do it like with a ground truck for the CD: they quickly tied the launcher to the truck from "guano and branches", and the CD flew from this unit.

      There is no agreement on the issue of "non-strategic nuclear weapons on ships". In the early 90s, the Presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States exchanged letters on the topic "I removed nuclear weapons from non-strategic ships" and "I also removed them."
      And if fears about the Canyon (nuclear weapons on a non-strategic launcher) suddenly come out (as with Iskander K), then a very good question is: how quickly will US politicians "force" the US fleet to return nuclear bombs, including those with a suspension on the F35S and SLCMs with nuclear weapons?
      IMHO, it will be months, no more.

      Due to several Canyons (with unclear efficiency), we can get a situation worse than in the 80s: Berks, Ticonderogi or Zamvolts will be, for example, in the Black or Baltic Sea with nuclear weapons. Well, or SSBNs "cut under the KR" will also be with nuclear weapons.

      3. IMHO, the military is holding Trident II with W76-2 warheads against Iran and North Korea.
      Again, IMHO, politicians and the military in the United States lie to each other in the eyes: "we have an answer for the Russian Federation to the doctrine" escalation to de-escalation "if there is a small explosion, we will also make a small explosion."
      But this, IMHO, is a "plan for the sake of a plan", and if it comes to the use of nuclear weapons, the generals of Stratcom will give the following recommendation to the US President: you can "bomb Voronezh" once, but where is the guarantee that there will be no mass launch in response? The lives of about 30 million Americans will be "at stake" and Stratcom will recommend a "disarming / decapitating" strike right away, IMHO.

      It would be nice if Bongo would somehow comment on the Unified Integrated Operational Plan and what is now in the USA instead of SIOP.
      It seems that, according to open sources, the targets in the Russian Federation were not cities, only military and economic facilities (hmm, how, interestingly, are the buildings of the "Arbat Military District" or in Bolshoy Kozlovsky Lane distinguished from the city of Moscow in this regard?).

      By the way, there is an interesting view of the British on the problem of who and how will react to a nuclear strike. The Air Force (it's like our TASS) made a film with real military men and politicians on this topic. World War Three: Inside the War Room
      A brief spoiler: if there is a mess with nuclear weapons, then the US will "bang", and there will be a discussion in the UK. And even if nuclear weapons fly to London, the SSBN commanders are not given a command to launch, even at military facilities (6 votes against 3). The "doctrine of intimidation" did not work, it makes no sense to multiply the number of victims (although T. Mei claimed that "it will definitely bang").
      The link to the whole film is not inserted, there is a mail ru on the search: "Russian sound. World War Three: Inside The War Room / third world View from the command ..."
  13. Vladimir Druzhinin
    Vladimir Druzhinin 19 January 2022 20: 55
    -2
    Unfortunately, you are not accurate on the details. In particular, you state that the States last exchanged data with the Russian Federation at the beginning of 2021, but this is not so. The last exchange is September 1, 2021.
    And regarding their arsenal, the States are much less modest in their response. 3750 warheads have been declared by the current administration. The rest are awaiting disposal, and its pace is encouraging.
    Yes, and there are some problems with the modernization of existing warheads for ICBMs, SLBMs and ALCMs.
    1. Wildcat
      Wildcat 19 January 2022 23: 52
      +3
      There is a very good question here, how these data on the number of nuclear weapons are made. Under Trump, these numbers did not exist at all, Biden revealed.
      Further google translation, laziness kryzhit:
      "According to new data, as of September 2020, the United States had a total of 3750 nuclear warheads in the Department of Defense's nuclear weapons arsenal. This number is only 50 warheads short of our estimate of 3800 warheads at the start of this year."
      “The data also shows that as of September 2020, there were approximately 2000 decommissioned warheads in storage in the United States awaiting dismantlement. The decommissioned warheads belong to the Department of Energy and are not part of the US Department of Defense stocks.
      This number is consistent with the available data. Former Secretary of State John Kerry stated in 2015 that about 2500 retired weapons remained (as of September 2014). Since then, 1432 warheads have been dismantled and another 967 warheads have been decommissioned, leaving just over 2000 warheads on the waiting list for dismantling."
      https://fas.org/blogs/security/2021/10/nuclear-stockpile2021/
      There are no verification methods or guarantees for such claims.
      Can such data be trusted in such matters? My IMHO is no. Even where there is an obligation to disclose data, there are problems.
      "The Foreign Ministry stressed that the US-declared figure of 800 on the last point was achieved "not only thanks to real reductions in American weapons, but also through unilateral withdrawal of 56 Trident-II SLBM launchers and 41 V-52N heavy bombers from the count under the agreement".
      "Their re-equipment was carried out in such a way that the Russian side cannot confirm that these strategic offensive weapons have been brought into a state unsuitable for the use of nuclear weapons, as provided for by paragraph 3 of section I of chapter three of the protocol to the treaty," the publication says.
      The department noted that The US has also redesignated four training silo launchers into the "training silo" category, which is not covered by the START. Washington refuses to include them in the treaty count as non-deployed ICBM silo launchers."
      https://ria.ru/20210524/vooruzheniya-1733637076.html

      IMHO: US nuclear weapons, especially bombs and ALCMs, are very effective weapons. And it will be even more efficient. The United States, considering China and the Russian Federation as opponents, should have much more tactical nuclear weapons (although this term seems to be controversial for the same B61). And the United States cannot have less tactical nuclear weapons than, say, the Russian Federation. IMHO, of course.
      1. Vladimir Druzhinin
        Vladimir Druzhinin 20 January 2022 00: 51
        0
        There is a very good question here, how these data on the number of nuclear weapons are made. Under Trump, these numbers did not exist at all, Biden revealed.
        Further google translation, laziness kryzhit:
        "According to new data, as of September 2020, the United States had a total of 3750 nuclear warheads in the Department of Defense's nuclear weapons arsenal. This number is only 50 warheads short of our estimate of 3800 warheads at the start of this year."
        "The data also shows that, as of September 2020, there were approximately 2000 decommissioned warheads in storage in the United States awaiting dismantlement. The decommissioned warheads are owned by the Department of Energy and are not part of the Department of Defense's inventory.
        .
        And what doesn’t suit you?
        Initially, it was supposed to upgrade 3.000 W76, then slipped to 2.000, then to 1.500.
        Minutemen-3 now have one W87 each, that is, only 400, W78 are mostly disposed of, a certain amount is sawn into W87-1.
        All W80-0s are fully dismantled, W80-1s will be upgraded to W80-4s.
        W88 will be sawn (correct name LEP.. laughing ) into a new hypostasis.
        With B61 bombs, the same essence is essentially the issue.
        1. Wildcat
          Wildcat 20 January 2022 01: 49
          +2
          And what doesn’t suit you?

          Everything suits me. winked

          However, in the question "how many nuclear weapons does the United States have" I don't really like that the answer "3750 plus 2000 in dismantling" can only be verified by the one who claims it himself.

          And then, as in a joke about Chapaev, “I go into a club. Everyone is sitting there, drinking, playing cards. I told him: “Show me!” And he told me: “We, gentlemen, take each other’s word for it.” And that’s when I started to get lucky ...

          Moving on.
          Has it ever happened that the United States had "black" military programs, the very existence of which was denied until the facts simply fell on their heads? Yes, it happened. For example, the program F117.

          Has it ever happened in the United States that in the most important military programs, such as, for example, military aircraft building or shipbuilding, the United States declared: "Yes, we are rolling into a solid 2nd place, or maybe third, but we don't care?" No.

          Maybe nuclear weapons are ineffective or cannot be hidden? No, nuclear weapons are as effective as ever (and the number of targets for nuclear weapons is increasing, from North Korea to Iran), and it is difficult to hide ICBMs, but not B61s.
          But politically, all the fighters for peace (including Obama), nuclear zero and other humanism against plastic bags would be uncomfortable to say "yes, we are a" multi-power "country in terms of tactical nuclear weapons."

          Hence my IMHO: in a fundamentally unverifiable statement, you should not trust a person who benefits from distorting the data in the direction of understatement.
          hi
          1. Vladimir Druzhinin
            Vladimir Druzhinin 20 January 2022 02: 48
            -1
            You see, in fact, you have nothing special to answer.
            For the same 1.500 W76 plus 350 W88, 400 W87 on Minutemen-3, 500 W80-1 on AGM-86B, and another 500 on B61 bombs and repartition of W78, W80, plus W83 (50 units) and W61-11 (also announced in the amount of 50) and will give the desired 3.750. So your move.
            1. Wildcat
              Wildcat 20 January 2022 02: 53
              0
              Everything is written above.
              1. Vladimir Druzhinin
                Vladimir Druzhinin 20 January 2022 03: 00
                -3
                I understand that in fact there will be nothing, except for jokes about Chapaev and other .. laughing
                1. Wildcat
                  Wildcat 20 January 2022 03: 25
                  +2
                  Short Course in Philosophy:
                  "fact - a special sentence that fixes empirical knowledge, a statement or a condition that can be verified".

                  You have in your initial post, IMHO, no fact. There is some contention from the Biden administration. "A statement that cannot be directly confirmed or refuted is called a conjecture or opinion.."

                  Now that you have, I hope, understood what "fact" is and what "guess" and "statement" are, I kindly ask you to explain: what did you see in the Biden administration's statement about the amount of nuclear weapons in the United States that makes you accept this statement as a fact? Maybe you have something that allows you to verify it?

                  If you have to search for an answer to my questions for a long time, could you at least quickly find an anecdote that is a) funny b) relevant to the topic of our discussion?
                  It wouldn't hurt much....
                  1. Vladimir Druzhinin
                    Vladimir Druzhinin 20 January 2022 03: 33
                    -1
                    :
                    Short Course in Philosophy

                    Take the trouble to teach this course without my participation,
                    1. Wildcat
                      Wildcat 20 January 2022 03: 34
                      +2
                      Well, at least wait for a joke?
                      1. Vladimir Druzhinin
                        Vladimir Druzhinin 20 January 2022 17: 05
                        0
                        Actually, this is all that interested me on this resource in terms of the quality of publications and comments on them.
                      2. Shahno
                        Shahno 20 January 2022 17: 12
                        +3
                        You can improve the quality of publications, there have already been precedents, quite recently. A good joke is sometimes better than another article ...
                      3. Wildcat
                        Wildcat 20 January 2022 18: 02
                        +1
                        How else would you expect from a person who can write competently and determine for himself (on the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry, IMHO) when there was an exchange of information on START3.

                        On the other hand, perhaps your expectations regarding communication were not fully justified.
                        But for mercy, this is all at once in communication with people you do not know:
                        "Unfortunately, you're not accurate on the details."
                        "Actually, you have nothing to answer with."
                        "in fact, there will be nothing, except for jokes about Chapaev and others .."
                        All this caused a backlash. I had to match.

                        Actually, that's all, I don't dare to detain you, "all the best, good mood and health."
          2. Anzhey V.
            Anzhey V. 24 January 2022 17: 07
            +4
            Has it ever happened that the United States had "black" military programs, the very existence of which was denied?


            I'll tell you more, the Pentagon has a so-called default
            a special "secret item" of the budget, the costs of which are unknown to anyone except the highest military administrators and direct executors.

            Closest examples include the secret government nuclear bunker near Washington that was built under Obama and the RQ-170/180 stealth drone program. So you are right, the same funding for the development of nuclear weapons may well go through the secret part.
  14. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 29 January 2022 14: 37
    -4
    I haven’t visited the topvar for a long time, which hasn’t changed in the slightest in its unpolite howling and jumping, but oh well, not in the conscientious waronline, where for some reason the patriots of Haifa communicate purely in Russian. I skimmed through a series of articles, by the way, reading comments is even more interesting. If we discard the advertising tinsel on which the author is bought, with a beautiful design, with the slogans "we are NATO", then in fact everything is not so beautiful in the Danish kingdom. The first surprise is the frank anachronism in the form of free-falling bombs, I won’t even argue, but I’ll immediately send it through the forest. Another point with cruise missiles, they say, was extended, but it seems that their peers are already quite old x-55, old missiles with insufficient parameters. The most interesting thing is the absence of super-powerful charges from one or more megatons. One should not think that the Americans do not make them out of great humanism, rather, the problem here is precisely in the carriers. Here about them and interestingly looms. Neither the Minuteman nor the Trident are in any way suitable for this role, or they are suitable with a strong drop in range, the bombers go through the forest, at least screw the wings like a Jew, the ranges are ridiculous there, even the melee air defense system is already a threat to them. So, there is a similar situation with tactical charges, there is simply no normal complex that strikes for 500 or more kilometers, chemical weapons are not serious, such a battery itself runs the risk of attacking the enemy from the missile defense system, which poses a threat to the task. And there is no stealth either, there is a floating mark and signal strength. I'm not saying that they rotted, but the fact that they are in captivity of past wars, usually with the Papuans, the urgent need for child prodigies disappeared as the main rival was overthrown. And they will not fight, because all this is a props for puffing out cheeks.