64 hypersonic Zircon missiles with a nuclear warhead could permanently close the UK project
In November 2023, reporters from the British publication Mail Online decided to try on Moscow the promising American thermonuclear bomb B61-13 with a capacity of 360 kilotons of TNT equivalent. In the material presented to the public, the authors simulated the explosion and savored its consequences - destruction, a fiery whirlwind, how many Moscow residents will die immediately, and how many a little later, from radiation and disease.
Of course, it is unlikely that anyone in their right mind can seriously consider the possibility of delivering a nuclear strike on Moscow with the help of a free-falling, so-called “gravity” (oh, those beautiful names) nuclear bomb, no matter how modern it may be, since this action is not makes absolutely no sense.
Firstly, no strategic bomber, not even the newest American B-21 Raider, will not be able to reach Moscow undetected, despite all the measures implemented in its design to reduce visibility, not to mention the fact that Great Britain does not have such a bomber and never will.
True, there is a possibility of deploying F-35 fighters on British territory, including those with those very promising B61-13 thermonuclear bombs or their existing versions B61-12, but the F-35, even technically, will not reach Moscow due to lack of radius actions, except that it will be a one-way flight.
Test release of the B61-12 thermonuclear bomb from an F-35 fighter. Image by Los Alamos National Laboratory
Secondly, a nuclear strike on Moscow will not be a victory for Western countries, but only the beginning of a big war, the winners of which can be determined very conditionally, and they will be located in the most remote corners of the planet.
Nevertheless, if we consider the integral attitude of the population and leadership of Western countries towards Russia and Russians, then the interest in launching a nuclear strike on Moscow fits well into it. There is no doubt that the United States and Great Britain are being held back from a nuclear strike on our country not by abstract humanistic motives, but by very concrete fears of receiving a massive nuclear strike in response.
Another funny example - report by the Scottish organization Scottish CND, which advocates for the elimination of nuclear weapons in Scotland and around the world. It is characteristic that to build your argument on the need to abandon nuclear weapons they decided in the form of a detailed consideration of the consequences of a nuclear strike by a British strategic SSBN (nuclear missile-ballistic submarine) of the Vanguard type on Moscow and the Moscow region, with a count of the dead - according to their calculations, almost five and a half million people would die. This is not counting the wounded, the destruction of infrastructure and contamination of the area - they say, “how scary, let’s ban it.”
In general, even British pacifists know very well who their real enemy is; there is no doubt that they will start banning nuclear weapons with Russia, even if they are now declaring the opposite.
The cover from that same report, it’s immediately clear that people are fighting for peace
The US Armed Forces (AF), special organizations and industry are making significant efforts to break nuclear parity and provide themselves with a unilateral advantage that allows them to attack Russia. sudden disarming blow - precisely disarming, when most of the deployed assets of the Strategic Nuclear Forces (SNF) are destroyed, since when delivering a decapitating strike, when only the military-political leadership of the country is destroyed, there is no guarantee that a retaliatory strike will not be struck, perhaps to some extent the risks even increase.
Often, ordinary people think that it is impossible to crush a country that has nuclear weapons, cliches immediately pop up - “nuclear winter”, “global radioactive contamination”, “humanity will die out”, “the planet will split into pieces” and the like, but all this is far from reality .
In addition to the nuclear warheads themselves, highly effective carriers for them are needed – intercontinental ballistic missiles missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), capable of remaining in readiness to strike for decades, withstanding the shock wave and electromagnetic pulses from nearby nuclear explosions, and penetrating the enemy's anti-missile defense (ABM). ICBMs and SLBMs also require appropriate storage or transportation facilities - highly protected silo launchers (SLBMs) and modern SSBNs (in Russia - strategic missile submarines - SSBNs), and strategic bombers would not hurt either - that is, a full-fledged "nuclear triad" is needed.
We also need a missile attack warning system (MAWS), including ground and orbital echelons, capable of promptly detecting the fact of an attack and ensuring a retaliatory strike before enemy missiles reach their target. After the US withdraws from the ABM Treaty, missile defense systems will play an increasingly important role in nuclear deterrence.
Early warning systems, including ground-based (surface) radar stations and satellites that detect missile launches, are an important element of nuclear deterrence
Ideally, all this should work in combination - ICBMs in silos, SLBMs on SSBNs/SSBNs, early warning systems and missile defense. Only Russia and the United States have all of the above; China has almost everything; India is striving for this. All other nuclear powers can be considered “inferior” in this sense.
What do we have with the UK’s strategic nuclear forces?
UK strategic nuclear forces
Britain became one of the first nuclear powers - the third country to test nuclear weapons in October 1952, after the USA and the USSR. Since 1958, after the signing of the relevant treaty, the development of nuclear weapons in Great Britain began to largely depend on the United States, and over time this dependence only increased.
Once upon a time, the UK had an almost classic nuclear triad, including Avro Vulcan strategic bombers, Resolution SSBNs and Thor ground-launched intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), however, the PGM-17A Thor is an American MRBM deployed in the UK.
Avro Vulcan strategic bomber, Resolution SSBN and PGM-17A Thor IRBM
The British Armed Forces also had tactical nuclear weapons – artillery American-made projectiles and operational-tactical missile systems in service with the ground forces (GV), free-fall aerial bombs in the air force and depth nuclear bombs in the navy fleet (Navy). Also in Great Britain there were warehouses of American nuclear weapons, as well as carriers (aircraft) capable of ensuring their delivery.
However, after the collapse of the USSR, British strategic nuclear forces began to quickly decline - by the end of the 90s of the 16th century, the only component of the British strategic nuclear forces were four Vanguard-class SSBNs, each of which carries up to XNUMX American Trident II SLBMs with eight warheads. All four existing Vanguard-class SSBNs are based in Faslane (Scotland), at the Clyde Naval Base (NAS), at least one SSBN is always on combat duty.
Vanguard-class SSBN
Naval Base Clyde (HMNB Clyde)
American nuclear weapons and carriers were removed from British territory, but now there is talk of their return again, and, most likely, this issue will be resolved positively.
From 2030, the Dreadnought-class SSBNs will begin to enter service with the UK's strategic nuclear forces; they should finally replace the Vanguard-class SSBNs by 2060. It is also planned to increase the number of nuclear warheads by 40% - from 180 to 260 units.
Computer model of Dreadnought-class SSBN
How effective are the UK's strategic nuclear forces?
They are effective only if they coexist with the US strategic nuclear forces; without them, the UK’s strategic nuclear forces are just a target for a determined enemy. Even the presence of American nuclear weapons on the British Isles will not change anything - aviation The component is the least resistant to a disarming strike.
In addition, there are negative processes of degradation of the Royal Navy in general and its strategic underwater component in particular, due to the decline in the popularity of service in the Royal Navy, as well as the permission to recruit persons with deviant behavior - with mental disabilities, alcohol and drug abusers, with pathology of sexual behavior: openly homosexual and transgender people.
Who knows what will happen there next?
A new “coronavirus” epidemic, the emergence of 44 or more genders, the equalization of animals, insects and robots in rights with people, the possibility of children completely refusing to learn and develop, since becoming a moron is, after all, the legal right of a free Anglo-Saxon?
How will all this affect the combat effectiveness of the British Navy?
Currently, the UK manages to maintain the principle of “at least one SSBN on combat duty”, since only at this moment its protection from a sudden disarming strike is relatively high, but what will happen next?
Existing SSBNs are aging, new ones, even in the most successful scenario, will appear no earlier than 2030, or even later, in addition, in the UK there was talk about conversion of one SSBN into a cruise missile carrier (SSGN).
The Royal Navy is just a shadow of its former glory
Based on the above, in the near future there is a high probability of a “window of opportunity” when, for one reason or another, all British SSBNs, albeit for a short time, will end up in the Clyde naval base, which will make them vulnerable to a sudden disarming strike.
Since Great Britain does not have any alternative means of nuclear deterrence - it is a classic inferior nuclear power, only with Anglo-Saxon arrogance and the habits of a former colonial empire, then it is necessary to deal with it accordingly in this case.
Order of forces and means
The blow to Britain must be both disarming and decapitating. To ensure it, the minimum requirement is two Project 885M multi-purpose nuclear submarines (MSNAS), which together must carry 64 Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles (CR) with a nuclear warhead, optimized for striking ground targets with known coordinates.
The flight range of the Zircon hypersonic missile cruise missiles is indicated in various sources from 450 kilometers to more than 1 kilometers. It can be assumed that the factors at play here are the altitude of the flight path, the intensity of maneuvering, and the factor of the warhead - whether it is conventional or nuclear, since a nuclear warhead usually weighs less.
The priority target of Project 885M SSBNs and their Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles with nuclear warheads will be SSBNs located in the Clyde naval base, as well as other objects related to strategic nuclear deterrence, including government and military command and control bodies.
SSBN "Kazan" of project 885M "Yasen-M". Image by mil.ru
Of course, the SSBNs involved will be only the “tip of the iceberg,” the hidden part of which will include space reconnaissance assets, the resources of the Main Directorate for Deep-Sea Research (GUGI), as well as underwater situation monitoring equipment deployed on civilian ships and much more.
Day "D", hour "H"
The ideal moment to launch a disarming nuclear strike on Great Britain is a situation when, due to a combination of circumstances - accidents, malfunctions, dismissal of Royal Navy sailors, a strike by naval personnel in support of LGBT (prohibited in Russia) or something similar, all four British SSBNs will be parked at the piers. In this case, the strike can/should be delivered immediately, at the moment when all SSBNs are within the reach of the Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.
Theoretically, a strike could be delivered at a time when one British SSBN is on combat patrol, but in this case the risks increase significantly, and the number of forces and assets involved increases. In this case, the primary task is to track and destroy this only British SSBN by additional SSBN hunters allocated for this task, and only after its detection and destruction is the command given to launch Zircon hypersonic missiles with nuclear warheads at the remaining Clyde SSBNs in the naval base.
The decapitation strike is of secondary importance in relation to the disarming one, and should be applied to the military-political authorities, as well as the highest priority targets of the armed forces and intelligence services of Great Britain.
Risks and consequences
There is an opinion that if Russia launches a nuclear strike on Great Britain or any other NATO country, the United States will inevitably strike in response.
If you look at the official agreements, then yes, this is how it should be, but will these agreements be implemented?
Back in the early 5s, US military-analytical structures considered a situation where a possible enemy carried out a lightning-fast defeat of their ally, after which he announced a cessation of hostilities and his readiness to negotiate, which would put the United States in an extremely uncomfortable situation. And what could be “lightning faster” and “more devastating” than a nuclear strike delivered by hypersonic missiles - the American early warning missile system most likely will not even detect their launch, and if it does, they will definitely not have time to inform Britain, nor will they have time to receive it any fatal decision - in XNUMX minutes everything will be over, there will be no one to save.
In principle, the collapse of Great Britain is rather a blessing for the United States, because the former empire, “on which the sun never sets,” is not only an ally for the United States, but also a very dangerous competitor.
In the end, the United States should already understand that it will not be able to take over the whole world, at least in the foreseeable future, and having abandoned Europe and Asia, the superpower that has lost its former power can focus on Canada and the countries of Latin America, in fact returning to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which works on the principle: we will not let anyone rob you - we will do it ourselves.
We see how the world is changing, the USA is full of its own problems, even if a civil war does not start right now, what will happen in a couple of years, with such and such trends?
It is possible that someone in the USA also planned an attack on the USSR in the mid-eighties of the last century, looking at the degradation of management structures and the impotence of the Soviet government, which allowed the German amateur pilot Matthias Rust to fly across the entire country on a Cessna plane, which landed on Krasnaya square in Moscow directly opposite St. Basil's Cathedral.
On the day when two windows of opportunity coincide - the political crisis in the United States and the immediate presence of all British SSBNs in the Clyde naval base - the strike must be delivered immediately, and it will not have any consequences.
In the sense: negative consequences for Russia, with Great Britain, of course, after this it will be possible to say goodbye, at least as a single state - a former empire.
Conclusions
Of course, it is unlikely that Russia is preparing to launch a disarming and decapitating nuclear strike on Great Britain, but on the other hand, who knows - such things are not discussed on TV.
It is unlikely that the Russian Navy has the required number of hypersonic Zircon missile cruise missiles in service, but I am sure that the long-adopted supersonic missile cruise missile Oniks with a nuclear warhead will cope with this task very well, only the flight time will increase to about 15 minutes - The UK’s strategic nuclear forces will still not have time to do anything.
By the way, it is possible that the “Daggers” will be able to reach Great Britain, provided they are equipped with nuclear warheads, and the required quantity to deliver a guaranteed disarming strike can be ensured by integration of the Kinzhal complex into the armament of the Tu-160 strategic bomber-missile carrier or the promising long-range aviation complex (PAK DA).
The hostile activities of Great Britain towards our country are not only weakening, but only intensifying:
“Great Britain invited NATO allies to consider sending an expeditionary force of the alliance to Ukraine.
It is necessary to establish a no-fly zone over the territory controlled by the Kiev authorities, increase the supply of weapons and equipment, secretly transfer large highly maneuverable NATO forces to Ukraine from the border regions of Romania and Poland to occupy defensive lines along the right bank of the Dnieper, not excluding a preventive strike by the armed forces of Moldova and Romania on Transnistria.
In addition, the British plan involves the deployment of the alliance contingent and the armies of individual members of the organization on the territory of Norway and Finland to disperse the forces and assets of Russian troops. With the possibility of a simultaneous strike on strategic infrastructure facilities in the northern regions of Russia.
Britain intends to complete preparation of such a scenario by May this year.”
It is necessary to establish a no-fly zone over the territory controlled by the Kiev authorities, increase the supply of weapons and equipment, secretly transfer large highly maneuverable NATO forces to Ukraine from the border regions of Romania and Poland to occupy defensive lines along the right bank of the Dnieper, not excluding a preventive strike by the armed forces of Moldova and Romania on Transnistria.
In addition, the British plan involves the deployment of the alliance contingent and the armies of individual members of the organization on the territory of Norway and Finland to disperse the forces and assets of Russian troops. With the possibility of a simultaneous strike on strategic infrastructure facilities in the northern regions of Russia.
Britain intends to complete preparation of such a scenario by May this year.”
There is no point in waiting for her plans to succeed - we must be ready to rip out old Great Britain's nuclear fangs as soon as possible, and then we can only wait for the opportune moment to do so.
Information