The French Ministry of Defense reported on the successful launch of the M51.3 intercontinental ballistic missile

63
The French Ministry of Defense reported on the successful launch of the M51.3 intercontinental ballistic missile

France has tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile M51.3. According to the Ministry of Defense of the Republic, the launch was successful.

The French military conducted a test launch of the new M51.3 ICBM on the night from Saturday to Sunday. The missile was launched from the Biscarrosse region in southwestern France in the interests of the “French armed forces.” The goal is to protect French interests “in all circumstances,” the Defense Ministry said in a statement. The missile was launched without a nuclear warhead.



Minister of the Armed Forces Sébastien Lecornu reports the successful test launch of the M51.3 intercontinental ballistic missile, which was carried out without a nuclear charge

- said in a statement.

According to the military department, the shooting took place at a training ground in the northern part of the Atlantic; exact data is not provided. It is noted that the training part of the rocket successfully landed at the test site, “hundreds of kilometers from the coast”; there are no other details. It is also emphasized that the tests were carried out in strict accordance with international law. The rocket launch was declared successful.

The M51 is a French solid-fuel ballistic missile designed for deployment on submarines, which entered service in 2010. The flight range, according to open data, is 9 thousand kilometers. The rockets' navigation system is astro-inertial, using the Galileo satellite system. Designed for placement on Triomphant-class SSBNs, of which there are four in the French Navy. The French use the submarine Le Terrible ("Terrible") as a test platform; from 2008 to 2020, this submarine made four successful launches and one unsuccessful one.
    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    63 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. -7
      November 19, 2023
      And before that, did they launch nuclear warheads? They are bringing some kind of blizzard.)))
      1. +1
        November 19, 2023
        Lukash 66 - did they really launch missiles with nuclear weapons? belay When and where exactly did they launch??? am
        1. -1
          November 19, 2023
          It would be better if a couple of thousand immigrants were given a decent life, or taken home...
    3. +9
      November 19, 2023
      type Triomphant (Triumph)
      More precisely, a triumphant, a winner.
      1. +3
        November 19, 2023
        A classic name for French ships.
    4. -6
      November 19, 2023
      This is an improved model of the M51 rocket. The French previously stated that they plan to increase the range to 11 thousand km and reduce the circular deviation to 100 m. If it works, it will be a very formidable weapon. We need to improve our missiles, we are much inferior in accuracy (circular deviation)
      1. +12
        November 19, 2023
        Just too much? Let’s take for comparison a missile of similar range and basing Sineva KVO 250m warhead 100kt or 500kt, how much will 250 meters of deviation affect? No way, everyone will die and everything will collapse.
        1. +3
          November 19, 2023
          Quote: sifgame
          How much of an impact will a 250 meter deviation have?

          For targeted, underground targets, this is certainly a lot. The pressure of the shock wave quickly decays. hi
          Although if you walk around the test site after a nuclear explosion, you’re right - everyone will die. crying wassat
          1. +1
            November 19, 2023
            Here I would like to know how big the difference is in the costs of producing nuclear warheads of various powers and whether there is a fundamental difference for a carrier to deliver 300 Kt or 1 Mt in order to surely destroy the target. Or compare the parameters of a 300 Kt warhead with the parameters of a 1-5 Mt warhead.
            Due to ignorance of the issue, I only have an idea about the difference in the masses of uranium or plutonium that needs to be activated during the explosion. And if the mass of uranium/plutonium itself is a tiny fraction of everything else, then here’s the answer - you don’t need to bother too much with the CEP if it comes to the use of strategic nuclear weapons. It’s easier to increase the potential of nuclear warheads to be sure... But for tactical nuclear weapons, the CEP indicator is very important.
            1. +1
              November 19, 2023
              the difference in mass of uranium or plutonium that needs to be activated during the explosion.
              The detonation power is controlled (most often) by the amount of tritium used as a booster. This gas is pumped into the explosive core in order to “feed” the reaction with neutrons during detonation and the start of a chain reaction. And the mass of fissile material in a bomb, as a rule, is minimal - it’s easier, safer and simply cheaper, and it’s enough for more.
              1. 0
                November 19, 2023
                Bolt cutter (Alex), you are a treasure trove of useful information. But if it’s all about tritium, then it turns out that the weight of the nuclear warhead does not depend on the power at all? The only difference is the weight of the tritium gas, and it’s not even kilograms? I guess it's not that simple. I immediately remembered “Kuzka’s Mother”, which did not fit into the bomb bay and had to be suspended under the fuselage. Or are we talking about different things?
                1. +1
                  November 19, 2023
                  I immediately remembered “Kuzka’s Mother”
                  She is THERMO nuclear. This is still a little different.
              2. +2
                November 19, 2023
                Quote: Bolt Cutter
                This gas is pumped into the explosive core in order to “feed” the reaction with neutrons during detonation and the start of a chain reaction.

                Dear! For the sake of decency (and self-education!), you should at least take a look at the primer (WIKI). If only we could find something to read, maybe. It’s somehow unusual to communicate with such large “nuclear scientists”...
                1. There is no deuterium “gas” in a nuclear power plant, there is lithium deuterite - a solid substance. The Yankees are a little different. They constantly (like us too) come up with something and experiment, reducing the weight of the product. But they are clearly behind us in this matter.
                2. A neutron multiplier is used to “feed” the reaction with neutrons. Previously, this role was performed by beryllium plates. Now the principle of operation of the multiplier is slightly different...
                Well, and so on. by the list...
                AHA.
                1. 0
                  November 19, 2023
                  There is no deuterium “gas” in the nuclear power plant, there is lithium deuterite
                  How does the B-61 allow you to adjust the detonation power from 0.3 to 80 kilotons?
                  neutron multiplier. Previously, this role was performed by beryllium plates.
                  Are you a retired village teacher?
                  Well, and so on. by the list...
                  AHA.
                  Talk better about patriotism. You do better.
            2. 0
              November 19, 2023
              "Or compare the parameters of a 300 Kt warhead with the parameters of a 1-5 Mt warhead" ///
              ---
              For the destruction of a large city, a charge of 300-400 kT is optimal. A further increase gives a small increase in destruction.
              1. 0
                November 20, 2023
                voyaka uh (Alexey), I believe you... But do these calculations take into account the terrain and the option of deviation from the standard CEP? So I wondered how much more expensive it would be to manufacture nuclear warheads of greater power in order to more than compensate for these parameters. Or does this somehow take into account humanism towards nature and the population far from a military target? I understand well that Ph.D. NATO naval bases with nuclear submarines will send not one nuclear warhead, but several for reliability. And then, perhaps 3x300 Kt is better than one 1 MGt. I think all this has been calculated long ago and the optimal nuclear warhead power options have been selected. I came across articles and materials on US nuclear tests near atolls in the Pacific Ocean, where they looked at tsunamis from such explosions and revealed the lack of direct proportion. On the contrary, the nonlinearity was so striking that they came to the conclusion that overly powerful nuclear warheads were inappropriate to achieve target destruction in this way. The wave level fades too quickly. Here on the forum there was a discussion about Poseidon and the ability to wash away the coast even if he has 5 Mt.
        2. +1
          November 19, 2023
          Sineva - KVO from 120 to 350 m, Bulava -300 -350 m
          1. 0
            November 19, 2023
            Well, with such current deviations, you can shoot nuclear nuclei!
      2. KCA
        +6
        November 19, 2023
        We don’t have satellite correction, it seems to me that if the rocket doesn’t fly first, then it will be impossible to receive a satellite signal
      3. +1
        November 19, 2023
        Quote: Ivar Ravi
        we are much inferior in accuracy (circular deviation)

        You either have outdated or “estimated” data from the adversary. All combat units (breeding platforms) have long had a GLONASS correction system. The accuracy is comparable to the American Trident II units of the D5 complex. And 180-190 m was in the shaggy year when using ANS... But we don’t write about it. And if we write, then we underestimate the data, unlike the Yankees, who sculpt numbers everywhere from their advertising blocks, which in practice is very rarely confirmed.
    5. 0
      November 19, 2023
      Did the French launch their missile along the trajectory named after Kim Jong-un? wassat
    6. +12
      November 19, 2023
      "The missile was launched without a nuclear warhead." Well, the journalist is burning
      1. +9
        November 19, 2023
        "The missile was launched without a nuclear warhead." Well, the journalist is burning
        What do you want from the Pepsi generation? And soon the “Unified State Exam generation” will appear, and this is where the circus will begin.
        1. +5
          November 19, 2023
          from the Pepsi generation?
          The Pepsi generation is being replaced by the Yagi generation. laughing .
    7. +1
      November 19, 2023
      I wonder why the French need intercontinental missiles if all their opponents are in Eurasia?
      1. 0
        November 19, 2023
        African colonies to pacify
      2. -1
        November 19, 2023
        Quote: kakvastam
        I wonder why the French need intercontinental missiles if all their opponents are in Eurasia?

        Maybe they were offended by Australia for throwing them into the Premier League? laughing There are also long-standing grievances over France's nuclear tests near New Zealand and Australia, when it came to blowing up the Greenpeace ship "Rainbow Warrior" in 1985.
        1. 0
          November 19, 2023
          Quote: Saburov_Alexander53
          Quote: kakvastam
          I wonder why the French need intercontinental missiles if all their opponents are in Eurasia?

          Maybe they were offended by Australia for throwing them into the Premier League? laughing There are also long-standing grievances over France's nuclear tests near New Zealand and Australia, when it came to blowing up the Greenpeace ship "Rainbow Warrior" in 1985.

          Can you be more serious? China, North Korea, and a good half of the Russian Federation are located beyond 5000 km (average radius) from the starting positions.
          1. +2
            November 19, 2023
            North Korea certainly threatens France laughing hi

            In reality, no one threatens Europe at all.
            Except for the USA and blacks and Arabs.
      3. +2
        November 19, 2023
        The intercontinental one is harder to shoot down. So obviously they are always targeting us.
      4. Aag
        +1
        November 19, 2023
        Quote: kakvastam
        I wonder why the French need intercontinental missiles if all their opponents are in Eurasia?

        1) Eurasia is big.
        2) The launch site of ICBMs with nuclear submarines can vary greatly, preferably away from one’s own territory.
      5. +1
        November 19, 2023
        Quote: kakvastam
        I wonder why the French need intercontinental missiles if all their opponents are in Eurasia?

        Well, to fly to China from the Atlantic you need an intercontinent.
    8. +8
      November 19, 2023
      I immediately remember how difficult it was for our Bulava - the last project in which my father participated, may he rest in peace.
      1. 0
        November 19, 2023
        Our lag in solid-fuel missiles is all the more offensive because at one time we were ahead of the whole world by creating the world's first MLRS "Katyusha", where the main role was played by secret gunpowder, capable of burning out sequentially with the movement of the projectile, and not exploding. But during the Second World War we had to transfer the secret of this gunpowder to the United States in order to arrange the supply of shells for Katyushas under Lend-Lease. And the United States got hooked on this technology and sensed its prospects before us to create ICBMs. And we followed the path of liquid-fuel ICBMs, where we reached unprecedented heights. But time has shown and proven that TTR is much cheaper to operate than ZhTR. Take the same missiles on a submarine, where you had to refuel the missiles before each autonomous tank and drain the fuel after. And the TTR serves its entire life without such red tape and the risk of toxic fuel leakage.
        1. +4
          November 19, 2023
          transfer the secret of this gunpowder to the USA
          Modern solid fuels have nothing to do with “Katyusha” fuels at all, just as they have nothing to do with gunpowder itself. They are mixed.
          risk of toxic fuel leakage.
          There is a risk of a crack in the thickness of the charge, which guarantees a disaster.
          1. 0
            November 19, 2023
            Bolt cutter (Alex), thanks for your participation. I did not claim that gunpowder from Katyusha is an analogue of gunpowder in TTR. And I understand a completely different principle of combustion in a TTR, where it is important to achieve extremely uniform fuel burnout from the cylinder axis (rocket body) to the shell. I read that it was precisely this kind of uniform combustion along the entire axis that our solid fuel developers were unable to achieve for a long time. Decent quality was first achieved at the plant in Shostka, Sumy region. Ukrainian SSR, which became the first supplier of fuel for our missiles.
            I didn’t know about the risk of cracks inside solid fuel, thanks for the information. This means this is one of the reasons for emergency launches, including those of the Bulava. I understand that the rocket body immediately burns through such a crack at the initial stage of flight.
            1. +3
              November 19, 2023
              “I didn’t know about the risk of cracks inside solid fuel” ///
              ---
              For this reason, old Tochka-Us are not used - they can explode at the start.
            2. +1
              November 19, 2023
              through such a crack the rocket body immediately burns out
              Because of the cracks, the fuel burns faster (combustion spreads through the cracks, and not through the cavities provided), and the pressure in the combustion chamber increases sharply, which the latter often cannot withstand.
          2. -1
            November 19, 2023
            Quote: Bolt Cutter
            There is a risk of a crack in the thickness of the charge, which guarantees a disaster.

            Here is the composition of one of the new SRT*) 4th generation.
            mixed solid rocket fuel, contains ammonium perchlorate, aluminum powder, divinylnitrile rubber with terminal carboxyl groups, epoxy resin, plasticizer - dioctyl sebacate and diethyl ferrocene, hardener - lead oxide, lecithin and hexogen or octogen.

            All this is a viscous jelly mass... Tell me, plz! - what CAN Crack in it!? belay
            Note: *) SRT - mixed solid rocket fuel.
            1. 0
              November 19, 2023
              viscous jelly mass
              And how does the checker keep its shape? Or does she not need a uniform? And if it is not needed, then how is the combustion mode maintained and, most importantly, why is there a hardener in the composition if it does not harden? laughing ?
              1. -2
                November 20, 2023
                Quote: Bolt Cutter
                Why is there a hardener in the composition if it doesn’t harden?

                Colleague! hardener in the text there is a “parasitic chimera” of machine translation! In fact, it is a THICKENER, like the “soap” in napalm Yes But in essence, this “checker” is like a rubber ball that jumps higher than your height with a small force of impact on the floor... That’s why it is called “mixed”, this is RT.
                Don't be upset - I'm actually as purple as you imagine.
                It’s just a shame for the “truth”...
                1. -1
                  November 20, 2023
                  Cracks also appear in the rubber. And it is still solid with all that it implies.
        2. +4
          November 19, 2023
          Liquid SLBMs - ampulized. No one drains anything (except in emergency situations) and they are refueled not in the fleet and only once... Solid fuel ones crackle after some time, and for everyone (the last launch of the Minuteman)...
          1. 0
            November 19, 2023
            In Minuteman, the fuel does not become completely solid. It is poured into each stage at manufacturing plants in a liquid state, and then hardens to the state of plasticine.
            1. 0
              November 19, 2023
              Tell me where the info comes from? Who shared it with you? ... we are talking nonsense... in fact.
          2. 0
            November 19, 2023
            Quote: Mister22408
            Solid fuel ones crackle after some time, and for everyone (the last launch of the Minuteman)...

            The Minuteman was blown up 5 minutes into the flight by a team from the test site control center.
            The scheme for the combat use of the LGM-30G Minuteman-3 ICBM corresponds to the following stages:
            1) the missile is launched from the silo by starting the 1st stage engine
            2) on 60 with After starting, the 1st stage is switched off and the 2nd stage engine is started. The protective aerodynamic casing covering the BB is discarded;
            3) on 120 with after starting, the 2nd stage is turned off, the 3rd stage engine starts;
            4) in about 180 with after launch, the operation of the 3rd stage engine stops and the breeding unit with the AP is separated from the rocket;
            5) the breeding unit maneuvers and launches the AP with individual guidance trajectories;
            6) BBs move along individual ballistic trajectories assigned to them by the breeding unit, or by actively maneuvering. OUT (the active part of the trajectory when solid propellant engines of stages 1-3 are operating) is 180 seconds. The ICBM was blown up in the 5th minute when the remote control was not working.
            The passive part of the BB flight trajectory takes up most of the time of combat use of ICBMs (up to 25 minutes).
        3. +2
          November 19, 2023
          Quote: Saburov_Alexander53
          Take the same missiles on a submarine, where you had to refuel the missiles before each autonomous tank and drain the fuel after.

          From the D-9U complex, all pencils had encapsulated fuel and oxidizer tanks. Therefore, it is not clear to me what, where and how I “drained” after the autonomy. In any case, this was done at the RTB, and the crew loaded ready-made (refueled) products on board.
          1. +1
            November 20, 2023
            Boa constrictor KAA (Alexander), I appreciate your knowledge of the subject, but I am frightened and repelled by your manner of communication, where almost everything is wrong, you immediately grab the gun. I am grateful to everyone who responded to my question on this topic and I received a lot of different information from everyone. And if someone did not express their thoughts absolutely accurately or even with an erroneous understanding, then I am not offended and will study further from various sources.
            Now about encapsulated ZhTR. Yes, I have come across information that modern ZhTR are just like that, encapsulated. On my Project 629A submarine, back in the 70s, there was a D4 missile system with an R-21, where fuel was poured into the missile before autonomous operation or firing practice. And after autonomy, the missiles were unloaded back to a warehouse or a special floating base, where the fuel with heptyl was poured into special storage tanks. And our rocket scientists even named the time limits of 3-5 months that were permissible for our missiles in a fueled state.
            If you know, can you tell me whether there are such deadlines for encapsulated ZhTR or now, like TTR, they remain refilled for the entire period before being written off? And if the capsules are simply removed and replaced with new ones after a year or two, then this in any case complicates the maintenance of the ZhTR compared to the TTR.
    9. -1
      November 19, 2023
      It is necessary to protest against the aggressive policy of France - to do the same as the entire NATO howl when Russia tests its weapons!!!
      1. +3
        November 19, 2023
        Something is very strongly attracted to the news that the Sarmatians are on experimental duty, just like the avant-garde on new media. We decided to flex our muscles
    10. -2
      November 19, 2023
      French, American and British submarines sail in the same waters, and collisions have already taken place. To the enemy, the smell of the M51 will be the same as that of the Polaris, which means that if the French attack, the enemy will respond by attacking all three.
      So, in the event of a nuclear attack on the French city of Cholet, France will ask the Americans if they want to die for Cholet.... :)))
      1. +2
        November 19, 2023
        Quote from: zorglub bulgroz
        French, American and British submarines sail in the same waters, and collisions have already taken place. To the enemy, the smell of the M51 will be the same as that of the Polaris, which means that if the French attack, the enemy will respond by attacking all three.
        So, in the event of a nuclear attack on the French city of Cholet, France will ask the Americans if they want to die for Cholet.... :)))

        Well, you understand perfectly well that France itself will not fight with the Russian Federation. But when the turmoil between the United States and the Russian Federation begins, British and French SSBNs will immediately join in.
    11. -1
      November 19, 2023
      Quote: Saburov_Alexander53
      But during the Second World War we had to transfer the secret of this gunpowder to the USA


      Apparently it wasn't worth it. It turned out to be a big mistake.
      1. +1
        November 19, 2023
        Apparently it wasn't worth it. It turned out to be a big mistake.
        Well. how to say... if we received 60% of all used shells for Katyushas through Lend-Lease from the USA, then figure out whether it was worth it or not. In the same way, when we were drummed into it from childhood about 4% of the total Lend-Lease volume compared to what our industry produced during the war, it is worth looking at specific types of products, and not at the “average temperature in the hospital.” How do you like 55% of all aviation gasoline under Lend-Lease? Those. half of our aviation simply would not have taken off without Lend-Lease. More than half of all explosives (53%) were obtained under Lend-Lease. We received 106% of aluminum in the form of rolled products for aircraft production, i.e. the majority of our entire aircraft was built thanks to aluminum under Lend-Lease. We received 2,4 times more railway locomotives under Lend-Lease than we produced our own during the war. And they received ten times more railway cars! Cars, motorcycles, tin, copper, cobalt, etc. - all many times more than they could produce themselves. We even received half of the rails, 57%, under Lend-Lease. I didn’t pull these numbers out of thin air; look for yourself on the Internet.
        1. 0
          November 19, 2023
          You don’t take into account that Lend Lease began to arrive in significant quantities closer to 1943, when the outcome of the war was already a foregone conclusion. So he didn’t fundamentally change anything, although without him, of course, it would have been a little more difficult.
          1. +1
            November 20, 2023
            Kmon (Evgen), I take everything into account and don’t encourage me to love my Motherland out loud here. I will give a head start in this love to many younger people on this forum. With my remark about the value of Lend-Lease, I just wanted to show that 4% of the GDP of the USSR, and it was precisely this figure that Soviet literature fed us one-sidedly, without naming the full breakdown of components. And here I recalled several components that indicate in a completely different way the contribution of Lend-Lease to our victory. And if we take into account that all Lend-Lease weapons destroyed or used in the war were written off and were not subject to payment, then the picture with 4% looks like “the average temperature in a hospital.” Here again, for some reason, they began to compare the tanks (junk) that we received under Lend-Lease... One can feel how deeply these propaganda techniques are ingrained in our brains... And who can argue that our tanks were better? Would all our tanks, and most importantly, reach the front on time, if not for the locomotives from the USA? And let’s talk about airplanes, radio stations, cars... not to mention food. During the most difficult period of the war in 42, Stalin turned to Roosevelt with a request to revise the nomenclature of supplies under Lend-Lease in favor of food instead of weapons. This does not mean that we had enough weapons. This means that without food, soon there would be no one to fight with these weapons.
            1. 0
              November 20, 2023
              Not everyone immediately understands the value of locomotives (steam locomotives) from the USA. And comparative figures for the volume of Lend-Lease goods delivered to the USSR by various routes are well suited for understanding, and there were four major routes. For some reason, many people think that Lend-Lease mainly went across the Atlantic to Murmansk and Arkhangelsk... and they are very mistaken. Almost half (47%) went to the Far East via the Pacific Ocean. In second place through Iran (!!!) And only in third place with 17% through the Atlantic, where a significant part was sunk by the Germans, but the USSR did not bear the financial costs of sunk property under Lend-Lease.
              So, 47% of Lend-Lease goods from the Far East had to be transported inland to factories in Siberia and the Urals or directly to the front. But it was possible to transport only by railway, there was practically no road communication!!! And here 240% of steam locomotives from the USA look completely different.
              But we will continue to blame the USA and Great Britain for dumping their old tank junk on us, bashfully keeping silent about the planes that were better than ours until the middle of the war (Pokryshkin didn’t fly the Cobra for nothing). And here many people forget that World War 2 did not begin on June 22, as for the USSR, but had already been going on for two years on different continents. And why did someone suddenly have to give all the best to us, and for free, if it was destroyed in battle, if these two years the USSR was essentially (formally) a neutral ally of Hitler? It’s surprising that they decided to give something at all.... they clearly calculated what and how much to give in order to pull the Germans away from them. That is, no one owed us anything and even opened a second front according to our wishes. They opened it exactly when they considered it necessary for themselves and their interests. And all our lives we have been fooled about “allied duty” and other crap.
        2. +1
          November 19, 2023
          As for locomotives, during the war ALL locomotive factories in the USSR were reoriented to produce armored vehicles.
          Locomotives - according to the residual principle. Armored vehicles were more important.
          Lend-Lease tanks were outright rubbish, perhaps with the exception of the Sherman. British tanks from WWII are generally a terrible panopticon. Well, the "Matilda" is armored to the highest degree, and the gun is 47 mm and WITHOUT HE shells in principle. What use is it on the battlefield? The fire value is no more than a two-turret T-26.
          “Grant”, even the Sormovo “thirty-four” laughs at this.
          But trucks, uniforms, communications equipment, machines and airplanes - this was very valuable.
          1. +1
            November 19, 2023
            As for the Matildas, the German tanks were also mostly not Tigers and Panthers. Matilda seemed to take the rest well.
          2. 0
            November 20, 2023
            Locomotives - according to the residual principle. Armored vehicles were more important.
            Jager (Andrey), and does this change something in your understanding of the merits of Lend-Lease? I already wrote above, how would we transport armored vehicles to the front, ore and metals to factories for smelting this armor? Would you like to look at steam locomotives from this angle? Just for God's sake, don't blame me for singing in favor of the USA and the Anglo-Saxons. Look at the official figures and draw objective conclusions for yourself, a little deeper than the 4% that they continue to feed us everywhere.
    12. 0
      November 19, 2023
      France has tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile M51.3. According to the Ministry of Defense of the Republic, the launch was successful.
      That is, France could fire a missile at the US occupiers... We are on the same continent with them, like Europe. laughing laughing tongue
      1. -2
        November 19, 2023
        I can see the Continent shopping center from my window. I wonder if it's worth the effort? It’s reassuring that Leroy-Merlin and Auchan are standing nearby... maybe it’ll blow by? lol laughing
    13. 0
      November 19, 2023
      According to the military department, The shooting took place at a training ground in the North Atlantic, exact data is not provided. It is noted that the training part of the rocket successfully landed at the test site, "hundreds of hundreds of kilometers from the coast", no other details.

      What kind of testing ground if we are talking about a closed area in the North Atlantic, and the rocket still splashed down and did not land, because from this zone there is still many hundreds of kilometers to any "nearest" coast.

      La zone de retombees se situe en Atlantique Nord a plus centaines de kilometres de toute cote.

      The M51.3 missile is an improved version of the M51, a three-stage sea-to-surface strategic ballistic missile designed to be launched from French Navy submarines. The M51 was first tested from a land base in 2006 and from a submarine in 2010, the year it entered service.

      The new M51.3 missile, expected to enter service around 2025, is being developed by aerospace company ArianeGroup, a joint venture between Airbus and French defense group Safran.

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"