A salvo from under water: the beginning of the nuclear Apocalypse or its logical conclusion?
Today is a time when military doctrines are collapsing one after another and yesterday’s formidable situation on the battlefield weapon becomes something vulnerable and even helpless before the changes brought by military-technical progress. How, let's say, Tanks and UAVs, tanks and “roof fighters” and so on.
But there are types of weapons that represent something almost immutable. Like ICBMs with nuclear warheads, in front of which, whatever one may say, all this scientific and technological progress is nothing more than ant vanity. “After us there is silence” - this is the motto without the slightest boasting.
And there are types of weapons that not only do not become obsolete, without progressing very much, but on the contrary, the more changes in the world, the more immutable the classics become.
I invite you to mentally find yourself with me in one of the NORAD command centers, which is located in Canada, Ontario, in the town of North Bay, 350 km north of Toronto. There, on the evening of August 6, 1991, an alarm was declared due to the fact that a launch was recorded in the Barents Sea area. missiles.
In general, nothing like that, but dots began to rapidly appear on the radars, indicating that something unprecedented was happening - a massive missile launch. From under the water. And within 2 minutes, 16 launches of heavy ICBMs with MIRVs were recorded.
By the way, at that time the Soviet R-29s still had “only” 160 warheads. If all this “wealth” is poured into, for example, France, then there will be light in some places. Radioactive. In places of epicenters. But in fact, France can be written off as history.
There was a silence at the point that could only be described as deathly.
But after 4 terribly slow minutes, the radars brought joyful news: 14 missiles self-destructed, and the remaining two (the first and last) headed in the other direction, in the direction of Kamchatka.
They say that one of the officers, wiping cold sweat from his forehead, said the historical phrase: “What fireworks! Looks like the Russians are partying in earnest today!”
Yes, the Russians were walking. Because for the first time in world history (and so far there have been no repetitions), a submarine released its entire ammunition load from under the water in one salvo. This is how Operation Behemoth-2 ended, the heroes of which did not receive any awards other than regular titles, but in the conditions of post-peresistan collapse they defended our country with this one salvo for many years.
Why Behemoth-2? Well, just the first damn thing, “Behemoth”, as usual, came out lumpy.
On the navy In general, it was more than difficult then. On the one hand, the “glasnost” announced by Gorbachev (may he be damned forever and ever), which consisted of self-flagellation and self-humiliation of everything without exception, from the nanny in the nursery to the admiral and marshal, on the other hand, foreign policy, as a result of which the global reduction in The Armed Forces of the USSR, as a result of which many suffered, including your counterpart, I mean, the author.
But I think you all remember how and with what they watered the army and navy back then. Yes, there were a lot of excesses, but... there were plenty of nuances.
From the memoirs of the last Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy, Fleet Admiral Chernavin:
“We have some Navy experts who, especially at the beginning of perestroika, said on all television programs that our submarines were bad, American ones were good, that it was necessary not to build, but to sit down and think, decide everything, and only then build... During perestroika, we had renegades who spoke on television about how bad our submarines are, how they are monitored, how these boats are only targets, they should not have been built at all, how bad things are in our Navy and how good the Americans are, etc.
This made a negative impression on the public. Among them were two submariners. They wrote articles about the boats and appeared on television. Our boats have no military significance, they are noisy, the crews are bad, the commanders are bad, the top management does not understand anything. And therefore, an American boat clings to each boat and monitors it, abandoning it only when returning to base.”
This made a negative impression on the public. Among them were two submariners. They wrote articles about the boats and appeared on television. Our boats have no military significance, they are noisy, the crews are bad, the commanders are bad, the top management does not understand anything. And therefore, an American boat clings to each boat and monitors it, abandoning it only when returning to base.”
Meanwhile, the achievement of the K-140, when in the fall of 1969 a boat under the command of captain of the second rank Beketov launched eight missiles in one salvo, had not been repeated by anyone until that moment.
K-140
But they managed to throw mud at even this achievement, furiously proving that such a launch was an accident, and therefore one should not seriously count on the submarine forces.
Today, of course, all this looks like such nonsense, because what is the point of arming a boat with 16 or more missiles if, according to “experts,” the maximum that it can fire is two or three missiles? And they fenced a lot of this and tastefully. A country that has gone off the rails under the influence of Western democracy is scary.
In general, launching a rocket, and especially more than one, is a difficult process for a submerged boat. The boat must move at one strictly specified depth and at a certain speed. These parameters are individual for each boat, but on average it is a depth of 40-60 meters and a speed of no more than 5 knots.
After the launch, the heat sets in for the specialists from BCh-5, who are required to ensure that the weight of the boat is maintained after the missiles are launched by filling the appropriate ballast tanks with water. If this is done incorrectly, the boat will either “fail” to the depths or be thrown to the surface. In any case, the automation will stop launching rockets, so it is important that the weight of the launching rocket is replaced by the same weight of sea water.
In addition to mass, the boat is also affected by various dynamic load impulses from launching rockets. These loads have to be countered by the operation of the rudders, but the impulses can cause the boat to oscillate in the “corridor”.
In general: the mass launch of rockets is a very complex issue, requiring both precise operation of the automation and a trained and trained crew.
But there are additional aspects that can make such a task impossible. For example, as happened during the first Operation Behemoth. For the salvo, the K-84 (Ekaterinburg) boat of Project 667BDRM was chosen with all its ammunition, and in December 1989 they tried to carry out such a task as firing a salvo of all missiles at a conditional target in Kamchatka.
K-84 was filled with more than 50 naval officers who decided to go and collect orders “for the successful completion of a mission of particular importance.” The rules of the game were different then, not like now. As a result, the huge number of different commanders (they say there were only five staff political workers) created nervousness and a tense atmosphere, as a result of which the crew failed the mission.
Five missiles were fired, then the boat left the launch corridor into the depths, as a result of which the pressure crushed the sixth missile. There was a malfunction in the automation, then not all processes were provided for. The crew tried to interfere with the operation of the automation, as a result of which the shooting was canceled.
Then there was a two-year preparation for Operation Behemoth-2. Chernavin entrusted the task to the newest boat K-407 (Novomoskovsk), commanded by captain of the second rank Egorov.
The feat of the crew of this boat is definitely worth posting a detailed story on our pages, because right now, after so many years, a full understanding of what these sailors did is coming.
Over the course of two years, the clever Egorov turned his crew into a superbly tuned combat mechanism, not only performing routine actions, but capable of solving any (or almost any) problem that arose during preparation for a salvo.
Here you need to understand that such a thing as manual control during an underwater salvo is an unthinkable luxury. Man is too arbitrary a creature of nature, and therefore can make a mistake, which is now commonly called the “human factor” and disrupt the completion of a task. So the launch is controlled by automation and computers. Yes, they are also susceptible to failures, but not in the same way as humans.
The computer is able to very quickly predict the imbalance of forces that occurs during launch and acts on the boat and calculate all possible types of compensation, issuing them to the central control post in the form of commands. But then comes the work of the crew.
The compensation work is generally a masterpiece performed by specialists. In order to appreciate it, you just need to touch the work regulations.
Here the boat is moving in the corridor, the launch command sounds. And the Work begins:
- the hatch covers of the launch silos are opened. Water resistance instantly increases, you need to increase speed to maintain speed;
- the mines begin to fill with water. All 16 at once. The boat immediately begins to increase its weight; one R-29D missile weighs 33,3 tons! 16 missiles – correspondingly, almost 533 tons! This means that work begins in the bilge, which must compensate for these 533 tons by blowing ballast. Moreover, this must be done in such a way that the boat definitely does not leave the launch corridor, otherwise the automation will block the launch;
- the launches started. Each rocket coming out of the silo lightens the boat by 33,3 tons. The reverse work begins to take on ballast to keep the boat in the corridor;
- the outgoing rocket gives a certain push to the boat to a depth and this impulse must also be compensated so that the boat does not fall through and leave the corridor.
It turns out that ours were able to do such a difficult job, but what about the Americans?
The American military has a dry launch system that is somewhat different from ours. This was primarily due to the fact that the United States was significantly ahead of the USSR in the development of solid propellant engines for rockets. Yes, our chemists were lagging behind, but there were missiles. It was possible to solve the problem by inventing the concept of factory packaging of liquid rocket fuel components into ampoules suitable for storage and movement no worse than American solid fuel containers.
In general, the American launch tube system is more advertised. The Americans have always been able to do this better than anyone else on the planet. Is there an advantage to a “wet” or “dry” start? Hardly ever. Opponents of our method claim that a “wet start” is noisier, since it is necessary to fill the launch containers with water. It’s very controversial, because AFTER the start, American sailors do exactly the same thing: they fill their pipes with water. And the “dry” launch procedure itself is no quieter than whether the rocket was ejected with steam or compressed air. So the systems can be considered almost identical in efficiency.
But why didn’t the Americans try to master the salvo launch technique? Perhaps it has to do with the thousands of instructions that burden their armed forces. Americans generally don’t like being on the brink of risk; they have taken safety precautions to an absolute level, which, let’s face it, didn’t help much in Afghanistan.
What is the point here, and why all the backstory, we will now look at.
The modern era that began just a couple of years ago is not very pleasant. Mainly because scientific and technological progress has gone a little in the wrong direction, and instead of lasers, railguns and blasters, the cheapest UAVs have appeared, capable of passing through Defense and deliver a pinprick to the infrastructure. One hundred. A thousand. Burn a tank. A self-propelled gun. Ten tanks. One hundred tanks. And so on.
Russia, and after it Iran, successfully tested this type of combat operations, such as overloading the enemy’s air defense system due to a massive salvo with a mixed assortment of weapons: Drones, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles. And they tested it quite successfully.
Iran showed itself especially luxuriously here. This attack of theirs, when ultra-modern missiles flew in a crowd of often false targets, and every single one (even if there were only a few of them) hit the targets, it will become a classic. We also used something like this, but there is much less data, so let Iran take the lead, especially since they launched a lot at once.
Now let's once again visit some NVD command center, US missile defense system, no matter which one. Things haven’t changed that much there; data from radars, satellites, reconnaissance aircraft, and so on is still flowing in the same way. The essence is the same - quickly track the missile launch and take the necessary measures.
Here is the map.
They're staring at about the same one, only our launch silos in the Urals and strategic aircraft are probably marked on it. aviation at a few airfields. In general, the United States settled down quite well from the start: there are practically no neighbors, two oceans, practically impossible to get close to. Yes, after all, with the appearance of unpleasant things, it is now worth looking at Russian ships. It makes sense, especially in the Pacific.
Hypothetically, we are considering the possibility that we will have to unleash the very action that no one wants, but there are situations when it is no longer possible not to hit.
Underground mine launchers.
Yes, the hatches will open and the rockets will explode into the sky. Pros: the most vulnerable section of the trajectory, the acceleration section, the missiles will overcome their territory, without the enemy having a chance to destroy them. Disadvantages - fly 9 km, that is, enemy computers will be able to calculate interception and target anti-missiles. Yes, a modern ICBM, in addition to 000-6 warheads, also carries a bunch of garbage, which, after being shot, begins to fool ballistic computers and even jamming modules. Indeed, why waste time on trifles if we are talking about demolishing the continent?
Mobile launchers.
In principle, everything is the same, only the enemy may not know the place from where the missile will launch. But after the launch this will become known, and everything will be the same as for a regular rocket.
Aviation based.
It is clear that we do not have an aircraft that can drag the Bulava, which weighs 37 tons, somewhere. The main weapon of strategic aircraft is cruise missiles, and long-range ones at that. But this is no less unpleasant weapon, since it can carry a special warhead, and do it quite well.
Yes, planes are also very easy to track, starting from the moment they taxi, as the Ukrainians showed. But it is very difficult to shoot them down while they are flying over their territory. Therefore, the strategists will go either to the north, where catching them will be something else to do, or to the east, to the Pacific Ocean. There, of course, it is more difficult, because the distances are enormous, but they can be seen and the planes can be met, as soon as they go (if they go out) beyond the range of our air defense (modest by European standards), then they can be met by planes both from Alaska and from aircraft carriers further south.
But long-range cruise missiles are unpleasant. Yes, they are all subsonic, otherwise they would not fly several thousand kilometers, they are easier to intercept by the same aircraft and air defense systems, but they can still play their role in the common cause.
Submarines.
But really, where are the submarines? Actually, somewhere out there, under water. No one can say where, because it is very difficult to detect a submarine in, say, 178 km² of the Pacific Ocean. And under the area - it’s even more complicated, and don’t talk about search buoys and anti-aircraft ships, just imagine that the area of the Pacific Ocean is “only” 684 km² larger than the WHOLE area of the earth’s land.
It’s difficult here for satellites, it’s very difficult for ships here, and airplanes are practically powerless here. This is not the forties of the last century, when an airplane could actually “see” and a ship could “hear” a boat whose diving depth did not exceed 100 meters. "Borey" normally travels at a depth of 400 meters and, if necessary, can go down another hundred meters.
And here the big question is what is more effective - the Tu-160 strategic missile-carrying aircraft, which fired its 12 cruise missiles from a safe distance (however, ours can also from a dangerous one, this is a fact) 1 km from American targets, or suddenly appeared on at the same distance from the shores of the United States “Baton”, aka project 000 “Antey”, born from under the water with all its ammunition from 949 “Calibers”? It will be much more difficult to parry, because of the factor of surprise and shorter distance.
Well, what a salvo. By the way, seven Boreys equal 112 R-30 Bulava missiles and at least 672 warheads. Maximum - 1120 warheads. And - salvo launch method.
It would seem, what's the difference?
The simplest experiment: take a handful of small stones in one hand and start throwing them slowly at another person. One by one. Naturally, he will dodge some, knock some of it away with his hand, and some will hit him in the forehead. What if the whole handful is in one fell swoop? It’s not so easy to hit and dodge.
Here it is clear that for an ICBM, the distance within the flight range is not a very important point, because it, the missile, does not care whether it rises into the stratosphere 500 or 5 km from the target and begins acceleration and descent from there. Cruise missiles, which can load/thin out the enemy air defense system quite well, are also a great help. But a salvo of intercontinental ballistic missiles is even more relevant.
Airplanes, silos, mobile launchers, ships - these are all expected factors that can be tracked from the very beginning of the conflict. Submarines - no. This is not a controllable factor; the only thing that the Americans can still do is state the fact of the presence or absence of our boats in the base. And then - a salvo of intercontinental missiles.
Of course, the missile is very vulnerable in the initial part of its trajectory. And the presence in the area 50-70 km from the submarine of a destroyer or frigate with decent air defense will negate efforts to launch missiles.
But again, we look at the millions of square kilometers of ocean area and we understand that it is very problematic to stick not only ships but tracking devices. Therefore, the program “An American destroyer for every Russian submarine” will most likely remain unrealized. And the air defense system will again try to intercept Russian warheads. And let’s face it, it’s nothing in the USA. It's practically non-existent. And all hope is in the anti-missile system that is there, but the big question here is: will NMD cope with things like an Iran-style mass launch? When will everything that can reach the United States fly?
The capabilities of the US missile defense in full are worth talking about separately, especially since in light of recent events there is something to talk about. I am sure that today in the United States analysts (not couch potatoes) are also sitting and considering what will happen if a massive attack is carried out on the United States and how effective the National Missile Defense system will be.
The data received from Israel clearly shows that this will be very difficult to do. When different carriers come in waves, from UAVs to ICBMs, any air defense/missile defense system will sooner or later drown in information coming from surveillance systems, and launchers will require recharging.
Where will UAVs come from, you rightly ask? Well, if our missiles come from the north, west and east, then God himself ordered the drones to be launched from the south. From the Gulf of Mexico area, where we still seem to have friends. For example, Nicaragua. Or from the sides of bulk carriers under some tricky flag. Or with Ukrainian. What’s so hard about installing racks of “Shaheds” in the hold and just lifting the cloud into the air at the right moment? And let the computers go crazy there, calculating who is ahead.
Small-sized Israel, a country with excellent electronics and its own weapons, which even the United States does not hesitate to buy, supported by aircraft from air bases and a floating airfield, and anti-aircraft missiles from the territory of other countries, could not do anything with the Iranian cloud. More precisely, I could, but not quite what I would like.
Will the United States be able to accurately defend its territory, which is equal to 445 Israeli territories? We will discuss this in the next article; there will be many interesting figures there.
Many people said yesterday that we are surrounded, under blockade. Surrounded. Great, that means you can attack in absolutely any direction. In fact, the United States itself, despite its fleet, aviation, and army, could easily find itself surrounded. At a minimum, from the north and east, but it would be nice to also connect the south. But this is more work for diplomats.
Yes, the world does not stand still, especially war. The whole question is who can quickly find answers to the questions that our lives ask today. Who goes forward, and who tries on the role of catching up.
If in context, it’s not so important who starts the Apocalypse, what’s more important is who finishes it. In one gulp from under the water as well.
Information