Military Review

Force the United States to abandon a surprise disarming strike

49

Sudden Disarming Strike



Is the US considering a surprise disarming strike against Russia?

Yes, they are considering. The United States is the strongest nuclear superpower militarily, economically and technologically, claiming world leadership, and even world domination. Russia is inferior to the United States in many areas, and the only thing that keeps the United States from “grabbing our throats” is strategic nuclear weapon. There is no doubt that US leaders consider this a flagrant injustice - after the collapse of the USSR, they were sure that they had almost won, and now Russia, hiding behind a nuclear sword, allows itself to be insolent. If Russia did not have nuclear weapons now, military conflicts with the former Soviet republics armed with American weapons and openly supported by the United States would constantly burn along our borders, the Japanese would have already landed on the Kuril Islands, the Kaliningrad region would have been divided between Poland and Lithuania, and so on. etc.

The United States tried to break nuclear parity throughout the Cold War - the deployment of anti-missile defense systems, medium-range ballistic missiles in Europe - all these are links in the same chain. We like to talk about cutting the American budget, that programs like Star Wars are just an appearance aimed at disinforming the leadership of the USSR, but this is far from the case. They really tried, although so far they have not succeeded, but after all, the task is not an easy one. And the US will never give up its intentions to gain a unilateral strategic advantage.

Potential U.S. actions to break nuclear parity have previously been discussed in the series "The decline of the nuclear triad":

- "Air and ground components of strategic nuclear forces";
- "Marine component of strategic nuclear forces";
- "Ground and space echelons of early warning system";
- "U.S. weapon for decapitation";
- Cold War and Star Wars;
- "US ABM: present and near future";
- "US missile defense after 2030: intercept thousands of warheads".

What is the main threat in US actions?

First of all, the threat is not that the United States will be able to with impunity to inflict a sudden disarming strike on Russia, and the fact that they can decidethat they can do it. Anyone who has worked in large commercial and government structures knows how information can be distorted when moving from top to bottom and from bottom to top, when analysts' data is aggregated, averaged, generalized, misinterpreted, when reservations and conditions are lost, and as a result, two plus two becomes equal not to four, but to five. Under these conditions, any "border" conditions can be interpreted incorrectly, including for the sake of the political situation.

It can be assumed that the probability of making critical decisions by the US leadership can be significantly reduced by forming an unambiguous public and professional opinion, confidence in the guaranteed ability of Russia's strategic nuclear forces (SNF) to withstand/repel a sudden disarming strike and strike back.

How can this be implemented?

Delivering a sudden disarming strike provides for the absence of a threatened period - strategic missile submarines (SSBNs) and mobile ground-based missile systems (PGRK) do not have time to leave their bases if they were in them at the time of the strike, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) do not have time get a command to start.


PGRK and SSBNs that did not leave their bases at the time of a sudden disarming strike are just easy targets. Image by wikipedia.org

The issues of increasing the survivability of strategic missile forces were considered in the articles of the series "The evolution of the nuclear triad":

- "Prospects for the development of the ground component of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation";
- "Prospects for the development of the aviation component of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation";
- "Prospects for the development of the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation";
- "Generalized composition of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation in the medium term".

The problem is that the proposed measures require significant financial resources, changes in the balance of forces of strategic nuclear forces and will be implemented for quite a long time. At the same time, the sustainability of, for example, Russian SSBNs is currently in question.

Of course, it would be best to ensure the safe deployment of SSBNs with strong surface fleet and escort by multi-purpose nuclear submarines (SSNs), but it is far from certain that the Russian fleet will be able to solve this problem, even if it does only this. And there is no guarantee that the situation will change for the better in the near future. In addition, by focusing all the resources of the fleet on the protection of SSBNs, we will leave other vital areas without attention.

What other options are there?

Layered anti-torpedo defense system


Imagine that a decision is made to equip Russian SSBNs with a layered anti-torpedo defense system (ATD), the concept of which was discussed in the article "Octopus" - a complex of active anti-torpedo protection, which will provide the SSBNs with a high probability of withstanding the first sudden torpedo strike of the enemy and launching ballistic missiles.


The concept of KAPTZ "Octopus"

Information about the creation of various subsystems of layered anti-tank defense for submarines circulates to a limited extent in the media, and one fine day news reports appear: “On December 15, 2024, during the exercises conducted by the Russian Navy, the Dmitry Donskoy strategic missile submarine successfully intercepted four torpedoes fired by the Kazan multi-purpose nuclear submarine with the help of an active anti-torpedo defense complex ...”

In the future, this information is officially confirmed by high-ranking officials, several reports are published on specialized TV channels, some technical details of the tests appear, during which, as it turns out, four torpedoes imitating conditional enemy torpedoes were actually hit. It is stated that the layered anti-tank missile system installed on SSBNs and multi-purpose submarines is potentially capable of intercepting more than a dozen enemy torpedoes at the same time.

The question arises - if the information about the appearance and deployment of a layered anti-tank missile defense system on Russian SSBNs is confirmed, will the enemy risk trying to destroy them during a sudden disarming strike, as, in fact, the strike itself?

Numbers and risks


Let's consider the worst case scenario. For example, suppose that the United States managed to disable the ground component of the strategic nuclear forces - to destroy ICBMs in silo launchers (silos) and PGRKs with high-precision nuclear warheads (NWBs) flying along a gentle trajectory with a minimum flight time. Pro aviation there is nothing to say about the strategic nuclear forces component - in the absence of a threatened period, strategic missile-carrying bombers have no chance of getting out of the strike.

Remain SSBNs. Presumably Russia will have twelve Project 955/955A SSBNs. With an operational voltage coefficient (KOH) of the order of 0,3–0,4, four SSBNs will be on alert. Those that will stand at the piers are just targets, and it will be even easier for the enemy to destroy them than ICBMs in silos and PGRKs. Yes, and incomparably more profitable - you can cover hundreds of ours with one or two of their YaBBs.

We will assume that six nuclear warheads are installed on one ballistic missile of submarines (SLBMs), therefore, one SSBN of project 955/955A will carry 96 nuclear warheads for 16 SLBMs, respectively, four SSBNs are 64 SLBMs with 384 nuclear warheads.

Suppose that in the course of delivering a sudden disarming strike, the enemy suddenly attacked the four remaining Russian SSBNs on alert. Thanks to the layered anti-tank missile system, two managed to survive, and 192 YBBs flew in response to the enemy. The existing American missile defense system will intercept a couple of nuclear warheads - the maximum (at least for now). Thus, almost two hundred nuclear strikes will fall on American cities. But all SSBNs can potentially fight off the attack. By increasing the KOH to 0,5, we will get six SSBNs on alert or 288/576 surviving YBBs in a retaliatory strike. Any cover, for example, by multi-purpose submarines, diesel submarines and / or surface ships will further increase the survivability of the SSBNs.

Will the United States remain a superpower after a retaliatory strike of this magnitude, or will its leadership instantly pass to China? But China, too, can not waste time and, until the United States comes to its senses, “add” them with their own ICBMs?

It can be argued that US multi-purpose submarines will be able to destroy SSBNs, even with a layered anti-tank system installed on them, and that it has not been tested by real combat operations?

Yes, this is true, but this is a “double-edged sword” - just as we cannot be 100% sure that a layered anti-tank missile defense system will make it possible to protect our SSBNs from a torpedo attack with a high probability, so the United States cannot be sure , that they can be guaranteed to destroy SSBNs equipped with a layered anti-tank missile defense system before they fire ballistic missiles at their cities. Of course, we are talking about a situation where the layered anti-tank defense system is not a fiction, but a real-life complex, even if its effectiveness is in question.

Be that as it may, but the enemy will be forced to take this factor into account, and in their calculations, enemy analysts will be forced to assume that about half of the Russian SSBNs will be able to survive a surprise torpedo attack and strike back.

Is it possible that the enemy can easily bypass the layered anti-tank system? Doubt it will be easy. It will not work to increase the number of torpedoes in a salvo - the number of torpedo tubes on one submarine is fixed, and firing torpedoes in “bursts” will not work either.


The latest American submarines. Image by wikipedia.org

The enemy’s number of multi-purpose submarines is also not infinite, in addition, if you try to track one SSBN with several submarines, they can be detected with a higher probability simply due to an increase in their number in a certain area (according to probability theory) and the need to coordinate joint actions (using connections between submarines). In addition, in critical situations, and even in the course of paired tracking of SSBNs, ridiculous incidents are not ruled out when one enemy multi-purpose submarine collides with another, one of them collides with terrain elements, one submarine attacks another instead of SSBNs, and so on. further and the like.

Conclusions


The presence on the SSBNs of a layered anti-torpedo defense system, by the mere fact of its existence, can force the enemy to refuse to deliver a sudden disarming strike on our country.

The psychological factor from the appearance of a layered anti-torpedo defense system on SSBNs may be more important than the military one, although this does not mean that a layered anti-torpedo defense system should be created only as a means of exerting psychological pressure on the enemy, and not as a real and effective weapon.

On the other hand, war is a way of deception. The Soviet Union paraded dummies of ICBMs, rearranged bombers at airfields, and in every other way tried to exaggerate its military power so that the United States and its allies did not dare to unleash a third world war - and they succeeded.

Even if the layered anti-torpedo defense system of the SSBN is in reality unfinished and will receive limited functionality (at least at the initial stage), but the enemy does not have reliable information about this, then its presence on the SSBN can disrupt the enemy’s decision, which is tragic for all parties about inflicting a sudden disarming strike on Russia with only one fact of its existence. And it's worth it.
Author:
49 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. Far B
    Far B 23 February 2022 05: 25
    +16
    Is the US considering a surprise disarming strike against Russia?
    They have been considering this possibility since the late 40s. But even at the turn of the millennium, common sense prevailed, it was not in vain that during the attack on Pristina a certain general (albeit British, but NATO) cut him off - they say, I haven’t gone cuckoo yet to unleash the third world war. Nah, vigorous loaves will not fly yet. Although a local war on the territory of Ukraine (which, by and large, has become quite a backyard and is currently of interest to global players only as a training ground) is not excluded at all. But vigorous loaves will not fly. I repeat once again - until our "elites" pulled out their children and household members from abroad, from the territory of the "potential enemy" (who, in the terminology of you-know-whom - "partners"), until Western capital withdraws from Russia's assets - vigorous loaves will not fly. The above two conditions are the very points of no return, after which you will need to really strain. And now ... Well, the characters who, by the will of fate, are currently contesting the title of "king of the sandbox", are simply competing to see who urinates higher on the wall. The fact that at the same time the forelocks of the serfs crack should never be surprising - it has always been so.
    PS Recognition by Putin of the republics of the LDNR - I welcome, but I consider it incredibly belated and therefore completely incomplete action.
  2. andrewkor
    andrewkor 23 February 2022 05: 29
    +1
    Increased anti-torpedo protection is certainly good, but can SSBNs shoot right from the pier?
    1. tone
      tone 23 February 2022 07: 11
      +7
      Here fools build boats, but you need rocket berths! Here he is a genius who taught everyone!
      1. Sergei Fonov
        Sergei Fonov 23 February 2022 16: 14
        0
        We had, and I hope there will again be beautiful submarines in the form of trains, they could dive into any tunnel, and try to find them there.
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 23 February 2022 18: 21
          0
          After the leadership of Yakunin, it’s not relevant: there are too many private shops, the BZHRK will be merged.
          1. Sergei Fonov
            Sergei Fonov 24 February 2022 13: 53
            0
            I think that over time we will merge all the plumbers ourselves, and everything will be fine.
  3. KCA
    KCA 23 February 2022 05: 32
    0
    What prevents the SSBN, in the presence of a flight mission, to shoot directly from the pier without going to sea? Not all goals are achievable, but they will do their share of damage
    1. SVD68
      SVD68 23 February 2022 07: 55
      +7
      Obviously, what prevents the destruction of SSBNs at the pier by a preemptive disarming strike of the enemy.
      1. KCA
        KCA 23 February 2022 07: 59
        -3
        The United States does not yet have hypersound, and the axes need time to fly up, and if the nuclear submarines are not just laid up, but stand on the database, they can have time to launch
        1. SVD68
          SVD68 23 February 2022 08: 56
          +9
          The United States has hypersound, Trident 2 is called.

          Quote: KCA
          if the nuclear submarines are not just laid up, but stand on the database, they can have time to launch

          Then our mine MBRs will also have time and there is no point in building SSBNs.
    2. tone
      tone 24 February 2022 14: 13
      0
      Rocket piers the new wunderwaffle blunt?
  4. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 23 February 2022 05: 52
    -1
    one fine day, news reports appear: “December 15, 2024, during the exercises conducted by

    What was it... belay
    One false tsifirka turns it into nonsense. what
  5. carstorm 11
    carstorm 11 23 February 2022 06: 47
    +8
    Yeah, what the fuck???? The destruction of soil and mines will be immediately detected by all means of detection. You are so drowning for the submarine that you have really crossed all the boundaries. Why is the Russian Federation putting up various early warning systems? You are real but you want to scare the children with your Wishlist???
    1. Aag
      Aag 23 February 2022 07: 08
      +5
      Quote: carstorm 11
      Yeah, what the fuck???? The destruction of soil and mines will be immediately detected by all means of detection. You are so drowning for the submarine that you have really crossed all the boundaries. Why is the Russian Federation putting up various early warning systems? You are real but you want to scare the children with your Wishlist???

      If we allow the unpunished destruction of the ground-based strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation - the basis of strategic deterrence - then .... I don’t even know ... - drain the water.
      Happy Holidays! hi
      1. carstorm 11
        carstorm 11 23 February 2022 08: 12
        0
        It's physically impossible. Happy holiday!
      2. The comment was deleted.
  6. smaug78
    smaug78 23 February 2022 09: 22
    +2
    When an author writes on a bunch of different topics, it only means one thing. The author has no idea...
    1. ban
      ban 23 February 2022 10: 16
      -1
      In vain you are talking about the author.
      And the article is correct.
      1. smaug78
        smaug78 23 February 2022 10: 31
        +1
        Do you happen to know the specialty of the author?
      2. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 23 February 2022 10: 55
        +5
        The article is not written correctly. But now is not about that. The author stubbornly promotes the idea that a pre-emptive strike at close range against the nuclear deterrence forces will simply destroy them. As an axiom, the thesis about the absence of a threatening period is put forward. The option of surviving the ground and air component of nuclear deterrence is not even considered. And most importantly, the human factor is not considered in this very complex issue. Let me explain. There will be a threatening period, it is an axiom (wars do not start from scratch), the question is its duration. And at this moment, knowing about the possibility of a preemptive strike, our leadership may lose its nerve and it itself will order a nuclear strike with all available forces. Such a scenario of the development of events lies on the surface, and the adversary knows about it. And does he need it?
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 23 February 2022 14: 40
          +5
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          The author stubbornly promotes the idea that a preemptive strike at close range against the nuclear deterrence forces will simply destroy them. As an axiom, the thesis about the absence of a threatening period is put forward ...

          But I still don’t understand why Western capitalists need to turn 17 million square meters. km. land into a radioactive desert, when now oil and gas, metals and timber are coming from there, when 150 million people buy a lot of imported things (not God knows what, but some kind of sales market) ???
          The USSR - of course, it was a real threat, because it showed an alternative. The PRC - of course, it wants to take on too much, a sickly competitor has grown ... But why Russia? The oligarchs live quite at the rate of world capitalism, the streams of the green mass flow where it is said ... Therefore, all these nuclear confrontations now are nothing more than a propaganda device in order to distract people from thoughts of bad, difficult everyday life and the absence of a "bright future". ..
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 23 February 2022 18: 23
            +1
            Quote: Doccor18
            But I still don’t understand why Western capitalists need to turn 17 million square meters. km. land into a radioactive desert, when now oil and gas, metals and timber are coming from there, when 150 million people buy a lot of imported things (not God knows what, but some kind of sales market) ???
            From Libya, too, a lot of good things came, bombed and ruined, however.
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 23 February 2022 21: 21
              +1
              Quote: bk0010
              bombed and ravaged, nevertheless.

              There cannot be two identical destinies, there cannot be two identical states...
              Read about Libya, about the colonel. Lots of information.
              1. bk0010
                bk0010 23 February 2022 22: 51
                +3
                Quote: Doccor18
                No two destinies can be the same
                Yes? Have you forgotten Yugoslavia? She also collaborated with the West, they also bombed.
        2. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 23 February 2022 17: 39
          +2
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          Let me explain. There will be a threatening period, it is an axiom (wars do not start from scratch), the question is its duration.

          If you haven't noticed by chance, the threatening period we have right now is in full swing .. And what can you offer right now?
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 23 February 2022 19: 45
            +2
            This is not a threatening period, it's just a deterioration in relations. The United States declared to the whole world that they would not fight for the sake of Ukraine. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was really sad back then. Moreover, if the Americans at that time knew our real capabilities, then it is not known how it would have ended.
        3. ban
          ban 24 February 2022 08: 13
          0
          You just don't seem to know. We are talking about an unexpected strike by tridents at close range along a flat trajectory - at the mines of the ICBM, the bases of the PGRK, possibly supplemented by a strike by the KR at the naval base from a dagger distance.
          Timokhin and Klimov raised these questions here, ask
          PS I hope it's clear what the virgin was doing in our tervods?
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 24 February 2022 09: 23
            0
            “You just, apparently, are not in the know” - there are no those “who are in the know” at VO.
          2. jonht
            jonht 24 February 2022 14: 07
            0
            Of all the strategists in the world today, only ours fired back with a full salvo from the nuclear submarine, so it’s not a fact that the Americans will be able to quickly give out all their tridans, and even along a flat trajectory.
            Find now a lot of materials on Operation Behemoth and Behemoth 2. Yes, and Borey made a volley two by two.
            1. ban
              ban 24 February 2022 17: 18
              0
              Thanks, I'm aware)
  7. rocket757
    rocket757 23 February 2022 10: 28
    +1
    Conclusions
    . We must be strong, ready at any moment to deliver a crushing blow back to the enemy.
    It is difficult and even more difficult ... but otherwise, in general, it will not work out in any way.
  8. Hyper_X
    Hyper_X 23 February 2022 10: 56
    +5
    Dozens, hundreds, thousands of similar articles are simply stupid.
    The economy is at war, first of all, financial ...
    And the latter do not belong to our country .... like that.
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 23 February 2022 19: 58
      +1
      “The economy is at war, first of all, financial ones” - not everything is so primitive. It is possible to have a powerful economy and a weak army (the economic potential of Japan and Italy during WWII were close) with all the consequences. Economically, India is much more powerful than Pakistan, so what? I am silent about the conflict between China and Vietnam in the early 80s. As for finances, it is fundamentally wrong here - in the event of a war, no one will give a damn about finances - (they will print pieces of paper, I’m figuratively), and they will force the industry to work.
  9. dementor873
    dementor873 23 February 2022 11: 23
    +2
    We have PGRKs in Yurya, and even with Permeter-RTs command missiles. How to bring them down suddenly, if fart and fart from the border to them. I am generally silent about Irkutsk.
    Like that joke. We agreed to blow up all nuclear weapons of the USA and the Russian Federation, they blew everything up. Suddenly, the US ambassador comes and says, we have 3 more nuclear bombs left, now you obey us. Ours sit, writhing, what to do. Suddenly the adjutant comes running and says. Comrade General, we had a hitch there, one major was drinking and forgot about the order to destroy weapons in his regiment. Well, firstly, not a major, but a major general ...
    So ours is somewhere in the stash and yao, and harmful bacilli, just waiting in the wings. And then a couple of DRGs through Alaska will bring them an infection and the fun will begin.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 23 February 2022 12: 11
      +2
      Quote: dementor873
      one major drank and forgot about the order to destroy weapons in his regiment

      Forgot to destroy(!) nuclear(!) weapons in your regiment(!)? What kind of jokes are these, Russian, if the majors are supposed to destroy nuclear weapons at the regimental training ground? belay It can be seen what jokes are, such are ..........! Although, under Yeltsin in Russia, everything could have happened if the nuclear weapons of the Soviet Union (!) were easily left in Kazakhstan, Ukraine and small (!) Belarus, like a couple of ordinary F-1 grenades! Well, at least the Americans were worried about this; otherwise, now the "right sector" in Ukraine would not show bare asses from under lowered pants, but nuclear warheads!
      1. Woodman
        Woodman 23 February 2022 13: 46
        +1
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        What kind of jokes are these, Russian

        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Although, under Yeltsin in Russia, everything could be

        I laughed at this anecdote even under Gorbachev.
  10. HefeDMB69
    HefeDMB69 23 February 2022 13: 08
    +2
    Considering the completely non-illusory possibilities of destroying our SSBNs in their bases by a sudden strike, I cannot find an answer to the question: why are they being built in this case for gigantic sums? Cutting the budget across all verticals? Are the Barguzins really thin for cutting? But after all, they, BZHRK, are much more difficult, if British scientists do not lie, to destroy with this very sudden blow! Who will explain the misunderstanding to the old?
    1. Aag
      Aag 23 February 2022 16: 30
      +1
      Quote: HefeДМБ69
      Considering the completely non-illusory possibilities of destroying our SSBNs in their bases by a sudden strike, I cannot find an answer to the question: why are they being built in this case for gigantic sums? Cutting the budget across all verticals? Are the Barguzins really thin for cutting? But after all, they, BZHRK, are much more difficult, if British scientists do not lie, to destroy with this very sudden blow! Who will explain the misunderstanding to the old?

      I will try briefly, by virtue of my knowledge, permissible "glasnost" ...
      SSBNs are a serious argument in the nuclear triad. As planned ... With a different number of them, and a different level of forces and means ensuring their effective use (and these are minesweepers, and MA, and BOD ... and much more, the specialists will add). That is, when a dozen underwater strategists who are not tracked (!) will be an adversary, not like off the coast of the United States - but at least they will be "simply" "lost" by an adversary - this will be a deterrent! I hope this level and trying to get out...
      As for the air component of the strategic nuclear forces (which the Author does not even want to consider).
      But in vain ... The air component, although not the most powerful in a global conflict, is, in a threatened period, the MOST FLEXIBLE!
      As an example: the Supreme Commander recognized the independence of the LPR, DPR - at the same time, for example, part of the Tu-95 was relocated, part went on patrol (with nuclear weapons, the Kyrgyz Republic, it is not known) in neutral waters ... Factor? Undoubtedly!
      As a deterrent from converting a conventional conflict into a nuclear one, more than ... But ... For a certain period. They will not be able to hang in the right air forever (geopolitics, just geography does not always play us now.).
      Well, and, (IMHO, I’m ready to argue with opponents), the main, main component of the strategic nuclear forces is ground ... The most numerous, effective (in some cases of developments), cheap (ceteris paribus), -but, - not capable of blocking all possible plots of development of events ...
      I think it is not a secret for those present that the "ground" component of the strategic nuclear forces in the Russian Federation is currently represented by silo-based ICBMs (OS regiments, - a separate launch, - I agree, sometimes a confusing term; and PGRK ...). So, for reference, there is some ... "opposition" between the Strategic Missile Forces - sheep "miners" _ and "fuel oil" ...))) Believe me! This is, in fact, light trolling (nifigase, - what words I know ...), interdepartmental ... Sorry, I won’t miss the moment, - “Well, what about the Strategic Missile Forces of the OS? A company with a flag? ...)))
      In fact, - happy holiday, Brothers! I hope the Strategic Missile Forces - we will not disgrace ... Somewhere you, somewhere we - we will work out books 5,6, Brothers ?! No, in no case am I in a hurry ... It is necessary to be ready!
      Dear Hafe DMB69!
      Sorry, I "attacked" while writing a response to your comment ... I think I have the right - not excluding the obligation to be an example for young people (it's getting harder ...)
      1. HefeDMB69
        HefeDMB69 23 February 2022 18: 51
        0
        Thanks for the reaction, I have a clue about the structure of our triad, but I have no idea why they are more resistant to a disarming strike in comparison with the BZHRK? Well, speaking like a peasant. 1. How many of our submarines in real life secretly (!!!) plow the ocean from the total availability? It’s somehow silly for me to guess, taking into account all sorts of publications here about low-frequency, SOSUS, etc., that this is zero submarine. 2. The miners, like a boil on their foreheads, are visible to everyone and, with a double-triple outfit, they are nullified on their defeat (they don’t have active protection, do they?) And the dirt trucks circulating along their not painfully long circular paths are also not elusive Joe! About the strategists in Engels is not even funny. They only take off a little bit here on Sundays. Well?? Ahti us with such Strategic Missile Forces. And there are charges, but they don’t have a shield! But the BZHRK was killed and, apparently, commanders, strangers do not dare to cancel, uh, say, nitpicks. And it will be in Gaidar's way - And there are shells, but the arrows are beaten. And there are rifles, but there are few fighters. And help is close, but there is no strength.
        1. Aag
          Aag 23 February 2022 19: 20
          0
          Quote: HefeДМБ69
          Thanks for the reaction, I have a clue about the structure of our triad, but I have no idea why they are more resistant to a disarming strike in comparison with the BZHRK? Well, speaking like a peasant. 1. How many of our submarines in real life secretly (!!!) plow the ocean from the total availability? It’s somehow silly for me to guess, taking into account all sorts of publications here about low-frequency, SOSUS, etc., that this is zero submarine. 2. The miners, like a boil on their foreheads, are visible to everyone and, with a double-triple outfit, they are nullified on their defeat (they don’t have active protection, do they?) And the dirt trucks circulating along their not painfully long circular paths are also not elusive Joe! About the strategists in Engels is not even funny. They only take off a little bit here on Sundays. Well?? Ahti us with such Strategic Missile Forces. And there are charges, but they don’t have a shield! But the BZHRK was killed and, apparently, commanders, strangers do not dare to cancel, uh, say, nitpicks. And it will be in Gaidar's way - And there are shells, but the arrows are beaten. And there are rifles, but there are few fighters. And help is close, but there is no strength.

          It seems, my senior comrade, you, too, "throw" - I don’t mind, - if, however, you had something to do with the defense of the USSR-NATO ....
          It’s a pity that young people in the RF Armed Forces may not understand .....
  11. sen
    sen 23 February 2022 14: 17
    +1
    Is the US considering a surprise disarming strike against Russia?
    Yes, they are considering. The United States is the strongest nuclear superpower militarily, economically and technologically, claiming world leadership, and even world domination.

    In my opinion, even theoretically it makes no sense to consider, since it is impossible to foresee everything. and a real global nuclear strike will follow.
  12. Basarev
    Basarev 23 February 2022 16: 58
    0
    Unrecorded moment. Submarines can be sunk not only with torpedoes. How do you plan to fight off anti-submarine aircraft? But it is she who is the main means of combating the underwater threat, in Western doctrine. Do not put the S-500 into the boat.
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 23 February 2022 18: 25
      +3
      Quote: Basarev
      How do you plan to fight off anti-submarine aircraft?
      They also drop torpedoes. The alternative is nuclear depth charges.
  13. bk0010
    bk0010 23 February 2022 18: 19
    +2
    It will not work to increase the number of torpedoes in a salvo - the number of torpedo tubes on one submarine is fixed, and firing torpedoes in “bursts” will not work either.
    NATO has a nuclear submarine - like a fool candy wrappers. They can also bring 3 boats to destroy the SSBNs. SSBNs should be equipped not only with anti-torpedo protection, but also with nuclear torpedoes (or Shkvals) in order to be able to change the hydrology of the area and blind the enemy.
  14. Fisherman
    Fisherman 23 February 2022 20: 29
    +2
    About "December 15, 2024" - smiled.
    But, seriously, ours will shoot back from the pier as soon as the Yankees launch the first missiles - our early detection and warning means are at the highest level! A part will certainly be in positions in the oceans, and additional units will be withdrawn both on a rotational basis and according to intelligence data. The author should study how conflicts begin and how intelligence detects them. Before starting such a big brawl with such serious opponents, any country prepares for a response and cancels vacations in strategically important military branches and services during the war, expels too many combat units from bases in advance, disperses aviation to combat airfields, there is such a mess in warehouses with knowledge base that only the lazy will not notice ... and much more. It will not be possible to deliver a global blow suddenly - intelligence will reveal both analytics and specific intelligence. So far they will reach the mine systems - the mines will already fly to the USA together with the missiles :)). And the Yankees are little informed about what is actually on duty at the bottom of their naval bases, the promise of Poseidons in the near future may well turn out to be ALREADY a dozen Poseidons on duty at the largest bases, but the Yankees have placed naval and other bases interspersed with the largest cities on the shores of oceans and bays. A few Poseidons will make the flooded bases and cities deserted and unusable for anything, the losses will be more than half the fleet, air force and population of the United States only from the Poseidons, even if they only fart a couple of star-striped missiles from the mines. A cyberattack and the destruction of GPS and other systems will plunge the entire United States into darkness in seconds without communication, water, electricity and other joys of civilization, the remnants of the country will get up out of habit. And all this is a MOMENT, the missiles will not have time to reach us yet. In addition, the author did not take into account an elementary thing - the most powerful air defense systems in the world in the areas of deployment of the Strategic Missile Forces, which bring the probability of defeat closer to zero. There is a lot more that the author needs to take into account, but he is boiling right, let him scare the military so that our fleet grows and grows stronger, nothing grows here without a scarecrow!
  15. Maks1995
    Maks1995 23 February 2022 20: 44
    +1
    In general, the General Staff of any country is needed for this, in order to draw up and consider plans.

    And if V. Putin officially allowed the first nuclear strike, then we should have such plans. Just do not comme il faut about them out loud even to speculate ...
    1. Sergei Fonov
      Sergei Fonov 24 February 2022 13: 48
      +1
      What about comme il faut? wait for a nuclear strike on you?
  16. RVAPatriot
    RVAPatriot 24 February 2022 10: 49
    0
    - the article is biased and copy paste ....
    1. Shopping Mall
      24 February 2022 18: 23
      0
      Quote: RVAPatriot
      - the article is biased and copy paste ....


      copy-paste from what, do not tell me?
  17. WWI
    WWI 24 February 2022 17: 42
    0
    Immediately send missile carriers of all types to the shores of the United States and England for preemptive strikes.