A salvo from under water: the beginning of the nuclear Apocalypse or its logical conclusion?

145
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 be with me in one of the NORAD command centers, which is located in Canada, the province of Ontario, the town of North Bay, which is 350 km north of Toronto. There, on the evening of August 6, 1991, an alarm was declared due to the fact that a missile launch was detected in the Barents Sea area.


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.”


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 modernity that began just a couple of years ago is not very pleasant. Mainly because scientific and technological progress went a little differently than predicted, and instead of lasers, railguns and blasters, cheap UAVs appeared, capable of passing through air defenses and delivering a pinprick to infrastructure. One hundred. A thousand. Burn the tank. Self-propelled guns. 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.
145 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    15 May 2024 05: 49
    Roman is in a cheerful mood today...
    What do submariners say when asked how are you feeling? ... "The mood is cheerful... we're going down." smile
    Well, in general, I still think the Americans will not risk their existence, knowing that they will be destroyed in response to an attack on Russia.
    Thanks for the interesting article with details.
    1. +5
      15 May 2024 10: 09
      I don't think they'll risk it. But there is an alarming motive: under the USSR, the striped ones laughed about us, in some places they respected us, in others they were afraid, in others they joked, and so on. Those. there was a palette of feelings, and, what is important, international laws worked somehow. Now the palette of feelings has narrowed to our complete denial and wild hatred. Laws don't work. Under these conditions, clouding of the mind and an outburst of wild anger are possible. And such a mentally ill person runs to the red button and...
      We are now closer to the end of the world than at any time in history.
    2. 0
      15 May 2024 17: 49
      Yes, it’s not a matter of who will take the risk and who won’t. The fact is that with general tension and nervousness, a missile launch may happen spontaneously, as a result of a technical failure, for example. And then go figure out who started it first, and as a result of which the failure occurred
  2. +3
    15 May 2024 06: 00
    Today we are again close to the use of nuclear weapons, and the probability is high. We can only hope that this will not happen, otherwise everything will no longer matter.
    1. -5
      15 May 2024 12: 06
      Vadim S. (Vadim S). Today, 06:00. New. YOURS - "...Today we are again close to the use of nuclear weapons, and the probability is high. All that remains is hope that this will not happen, Otherwise it doesn't matter anymore..."

      You're digging deep, colleague. Yeah!
      Let's look at the list:
      1. ...WE are not close. and WE are forced... or they’ll just crush you with conventional weapons and military equipment. - THANKS TO PERESTROIKA AND DEMOCRACY (starting with Khrushch and ....) No matter how they spread noodles about the lack of military equipment and military equipment and “meat” for the war with the Russian Federation bins among the world's Westerners they have only thinned out and crying not all power was strained at home and at satellites. And "meat" So the question is the price. bully Remember how many waves of pyramids similar to MMM have passed and are ongoing in the Russian Federation!? Let's remember the lyrics of the song from "Pinocchio" - "...there's no sheath for a fool - you'll lie to him like crazy....show him a copper penny....and do with it whatever you want...". And they will “draw” as many candy wrappers made in the USA as NECESSARY...you don’t even have to worry about quality. like at one time in the Chechen company. But. Let's not rush, it's not "evening" yet. Many (I hope not all) did not learn all the factors and layouts.... The main thing is that “tolerance” in caring about the opinion of the “world community” does not prevail... belay feel request drinks .
      2. It doesn't matter about. ... "...how much is opium for the people..." will also do.
      Has a before and after. unless of course you are Katz.
      but - For example. what have you heard about THIS - Yellowstone calderaa - a volcanic caldera in Yellowstone National Park in the northwestern United States.. Just a little help, maximum - 1-2 pcs. The “Strait named after Comrade Stalin” is formed on its own. IN A NATURAL WAY - as the liberal media write about the extinction of the indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation. The US issue is closed. as well as probably their allies near the borders of the Russian Federation in the Pacific Ocean. Yes, an island of close shaving is probably just an appeal to citizens to neutralize their impudence. When trying to take off from Naglia and France and not only... sanitization of bases. and the rest will be “decided” by the surviving migrants living there (LET ALSO REMEMBER ABOUT “OUR WHO ARE ALWAYS READY TO PAY THEM FOR A PROMISE AND GET EVERYTHING ON THE TERRITORY OF RUSSIA, the quietest and law-abiding, irreplaceable MULTINATIONALS”).
      ....about Russia if not for the migrants am then it’s completely .... It will completely crack. as they have said more than once, BUT a lot of things will remain from the Russian Federation (geology)....
      Yes "brothers" and new "partners" can THEN try to SHARE...
      What's natural
      ... But here question for the "leaders" Are there all the options for the development of events? they calculated or AGAIN CLASSIC.. "... let's start with a pawn from E2 to E4 and about New - Vasyuki..."
      R.S. What to guess. We sit down in the stalls, the process has begun belay
    2. +1
      15 May 2024 19: 53
      Nuclear weapons are not the end of the world. People live in Hiroshima, Europeans buy Ukrainian grain, in Nevada there are crowds of rich people in casinos
  3. The comment was deleted.
    1. +14
      15 May 2024 07: 03
      But after 4 terribly slow minutes, the radars brought good news: 14 missiles self-destructed, and the remaining two (the first and last) headed in the other direction, in the direction of Kamchatka.
      In fact, there is an agreement with the United States on warnings during training missile launches. To avoid. And this is not the only mistake in the article. And in general the article is quite superficial and jingoistic. IMHO, naturally.
      1. +5
        15 May 2024 10: 14
        About 4 minutes is a blunder of course. We notified the Americans about this launch in advance. You can simply notify that we are training, but actually shoot. Well, there were nerves anyway
      2. +3
        15 May 2024 17: 15
        And this is not the only mistake in the article.
        The trouble is that some time ago all the obvious mistakes (from France to Nicaragua laughing ) the articles in the comments would have been sorted out by lunchtime. Now there is silence request .

        And in general the article is quite superficial and jingoistic. IMHO, naturally.
        But this is the second problem feel .
        So, what does the author offer us as a reason for “hurray”. As they say, “watch your hands”:
        1. “For the salvo, the K-84 (Ekaterinburg) boat of Project 667BDRM was chosen with all its ammunition, and in December 1989 they tried to perform such a task as firing a salvo of all missiles at a conditional target in Kamchatka. ... 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."
        That is, if you take a conventional submarine in the heyday of the Navy, this is what you get.
        And this is not the Apocalypse, which the author is so passionate about, this is an event after preparation.
        The fleet, of course, has nothing to do with it, Gorbachev and "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.".

        2. “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 mentioning...” here on This moment is “definitely worth” stopping. That is, in order for the SSBN fleet to be able to do what it is being held for (nuclear strike), it was necessary to take a new submarine, prepare the boat and crew for 2 (TWO) years, and then, in order for “14 missiles to self-destruct, and the remaining two (first and last) headed in the other direction"
        One more time: not to hit the training target with 160 blocks in order to “write off France”, but so that 16 (2 missiles and 14 “self-destructors”) ballistic missiles leave the boat without accident.

        3. Hurray!!!!!
        1. +1
          16 May 2024 00: 49
          Quote: Wildcat
          3. Hurray!!!!!

          But what about ....
          4. Throw away the caps

          laughing
      3. +2
        15 May 2024 20: 14
        Quote: Good evil
        In fact, there is an agreement with the United States on warnings during training missile launches. To avoid.

        The novel took on the topic too frivolously and laxly... A lot of bullshit (algorithm and process for launching SLBMs), a lot of gags. Suffice it to recall that during this launch, American observers were on the controller ship, which accompanies such launches “from above.” And their faces stretched out after the 5th rocket. And the rate of fire was not 7,5 seconds, but about 10-14. And when talking about the start, don’t mention the boatswain holding the boat at a given depth, that’s something!
        In short - "no ice"! No.
  4. +6
    15 May 2024 06: 18
    Millions of square kilometers are, of course, a lot, but the fact that there are only two SSBN bases and, accordingly, exits from them, is not very much... I would like to know how things stand with PLO exits from the bases.
    1. +15
      15 May 2024 09: 07
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      I would like to know how things are going with PLO exits from bases.

      It has gotten a little better in recent years, especially at the Pacific Fleet, where they added ships (exactly anti-submarine corvettes) and new Varshavyankas. And if we take into account that our entire surface fleet is only enough to ensure the withdrawal of our SSBNs, SSGNs and MAPLs from bases for combat deployment, then everyone who has something to somehow ensure the withdrawal of our submarines has something to provide. And no other tasks are foreseen for our surface fleet during the threatened period. Until we build the ships. And this issue will now be supervised by Patrushev... Well, of course, but... they will definitely not be in time for this booze.
      There are no corvettes on the Northern Fleet (old MPKs don’t count at all), so new frigates (3 units) and old BODs (3 units + 1 in modernization) will have to take the rap. NAPL pr. "Lada" of the Northern Fleet never arrived, the "Warsaws" were built only for the Black Sea Fleet and Pacific Fleet... now it seems they still want to order a series of 6 "Warsaws" for the Northern Fleet, while the "Ladas" are in endless and delightful fine-tuning Fortunately, the dancing around the VNEU is over (although the work seems to be continuing) and now they want to install new high-capacity batteries instead of the old/dense ones, which will resolve the issue. Those. decided to follow the path of the Japanese, South Koreans and Chinese. If high-capacity batteries allow you to have an underwater autonomy of 20+ days, then you won’t want any VNEU, it’s often even better than MAPL - the low noise and stealth indicators are much higher.
      But for this to appear, such non-submarine submarines must be BUILD.
      And the previous leadership of USC has been engaged in populism for the last 15 years, either proposing projects for nuclear super-aircraft carriers and nuclear destroyers, or insisting on continuing the construction of incredible monsters like Project 22160, 20386 and the Buyan MRK... but in fact, even a series of MRKs failed "Karakurt" can be built normally and on time. Not to mention the aggressive sabotage of the construction of frigates 22350\22350.1, the modernization of the nuclear cruiser Nakhimov and the aircraft carrier without a catapult Kuznetsov. Guided by the principle: “No matter what you do, just don’t do it.”
      In short, she was engaged in SABOTAGE and high treason.
      For which the leadership was dispersed, but not punished.
      1. +3
        15 May 2024 09: 10
        Expanded, quite the same.
        And now the question of air defense and air defense of surface ships supporting the deployment of SSBNs! (Joke)
        1. 0
          15 May 2024 10: 46
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          And now the question of air defense and air defense of surface ships supporting the deployment of SSBNs! (Joke)

          During deployment, air defense should be provided mainly by base aviation - they can see everything from above, especially the Kyrgyz Republic. Well, boats, whoever can do what they can.
          And the PMO... that’s how the Alexandrites are built, but for all the fleets in one place it’s long and inconvenient. It would be necessary to organize such construction in Primorye. And then, in terms of conversion, at the same capacity and in the same hull, you can sculpt all sorts of fishing longboats and yachts. It wouldn’t hurt to go to the World Cup either, but only after the war.
          1. +3
            15 May 2024 10: 55
            Quote: bayard
            Air defense during deployment should be provided mainly by base aviation - they can see everything from above, especially the Kyrgyz Republic

            Where do fighters have range? And we have practically no BPA left.

            Quote: bayard
            And the PMO... that’s how the Alexandrites are built, but for all the fleets in one place it’s long and inconvenient.
            Modern mines, especially in mass productions, are too tough for them...
            1. +1
              15 May 2024 12: 46
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Where do fighters have range?

              The Su-30SM and Su-35 have a long range, and you can add it with the help of a PTB. You can organize refueling in the zone. If you don’t have enough Il-78s, you can even use Su-24Ms as tankers; they have the equipment for this.
              The new frigates are fine with both air defense and anti-aircraft defense. The old BODs are already worse and only in the near zone. Modernized and medium-range air defense systems should have it (those that will soon come out of modernization). The corvettes are not clear, there were problems with the radar gun, and the missile launcher is too small.
              This summer they promised to put “Nakhimov” and “Kuznetsov” on the road. When they return to service, the Northern Fleet will receive powerful air defense at sea with such deployments. In Kamchatka, you will have to make do with the available means, and these are corvettes. True, they promised Project 20385 there, they have better air defense ... and even with anti-aircraft defense, they have the UKSK, and it may have PLUR.
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Modern mines, especially in mass productions, are too tough for them...

              "Alexandrites" are equipped with search UAVs and other new means. In any case, they promised. But there are few of them, but many are needed.
              The Defense Ministry now has a new minister, and the Navy has a new commander-in-chief. So let them think about it, they get paid for it.
            2. 0
              15 May 2024 21: 00
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Modern mines, especially in mass productions, are too tough for them...

              Alexandrites perfectly see all “modern” mines. And they discharge them with the help of a non-propelled gun and a demolition charge. Regarding the mass production... The mine has a duty channel (cocks) and a combat channel (attacks). And this combat channel has a response radius... Anchor ones, such as PRM, see g/a, and bottom ones are good at depths of up to 100m. Where have you seen such depths in the North and Pacific Fleet? But “self-transporting” is the biggest problem! If there is no map of false contacts, then it is practically impossible to catch it: you will be exhausted from “sniffing” all the detections. Again, they made up a lot of fairy tales about the Yankees, but in reality they are the same goofballs and indifferences as all the naval ones...
              ("we swam, we know!" (c) - film Volga, Volga) laughing
              1. 0
                16 May 2024 03: 17
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                Alexandrites perfectly see all “modern” mines. And they discharge them with the help of a non-propelled gun and a demolition charge. Regarding the mass production...

                Maybe they see... Only Captor hears further.

                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                And they discharge them with the help of a non-propelled gun and a demolition charge.
                Taking into account the self-detonation function, you can discharge as many as two, or how many UUVs there are on board, mines.

                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                and bottom ones are good at depths up to 100m. Where have you seen such depths in the North and Pacific Fleet?
                The average depth of the White Sea is 67 m. Captor 400 m.

                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                But “self-transporting” is the biggest problem!
                Or Quickstrikes EP.


                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                Again, they made up a lot of fairy tales about the Yankees, but in reality they are the same goofballs and indifferences as all the naval ones...
                Even if the mines go off every other time, it will be a scary tale.
      2. +1
        15 May 2024 16: 08
        Quote: bayard
        It has gotten a little better in recent years, especially at the Pacific Fleet, where they added ships (exactly anti-submarine corvettes) and new Varshavyankas. And if we take into account that our entire surface fleet is only enough to ensure the withdrawal of our SSBNs, SSGNs and MAPLs from bases for combat deployment, then everyone who has something to somehow ensure the withdrawal of our submarines has something to provide.

        Yeah... and after the nuclear submarine leaves the base, the same Pacific Fleet is trying to ensure the safety of five Boreevs with two live nuclear submarines. sad
        1. -3
          15 May 2024 22: 17
          Quote: Alexey RA
          and after the nuclear submarine leaves the base, the same Pacific Fleet is trying to ensure the safety of the five Boreevs with two live nuclear submarines.

          Three MAPLs - one "Pike-B" and two "Yasenya-M". Soon another "Pike-B" will be out of repair and another "Yasen-M". Let's not forget about the non-submarine submarines, which also provide support for the withdrawal.
          After the SSBN is withdrawn to the combat deployment area, the presence of MAPL nearby will be an unnecessary unmasking sign.
          Well, they have already started overhauling and modernizing the MAPLs and SSGNs taken out for repair (too late, but it’s better than never), incl. and on the "Star" in Bolshoy Kamen. There, "Pike-B" and "Baton\Antey" are now being modernized. And in the Northern Fleet they even got around to modernizing two titanium project 945, and capacity was found.
          If only they had found a way to complete the construction of that "Pike-B" that is 70% ready on the slipway of the Amur Shipyard... Another one would have turned out, and with zero mileage.
          In addition, the “Ash-M” series will continue and there will be 5 of them each. on every fleet. Or maybe 6 pieces each. , if they lay down a couple more.
          And today there are 3 MAPLs and about 7 units. NAPL.
      3. +1
        15 May 2024 20: 49
        Quote: bayard
        It's gotten a little better in recent years

        Colleague, with all due respect, but a few words about...
        1. All our submarine bases have a coastal g/a surveillance system. The north is provided by boats, 2 units. 677 projects were sent there specifically for this purpose. But we are waiting for finalization of the 777A project. In addition, the deployment routes for the APRK are now not through the Motovsky Bay, and this gives some hope...
        2. I don’t object to the “old BODs”, although they have undergone (are undergoing) modernization. But the new frigates (22350/22350.1) were not gathered in a bunch on the Northern Fleet so that they could fulfill the role of the MPK. This is the most formidable KUG with Zircons, which can upset any naval base of the adversary, or scare away the AUG/OBK of the adversary. And if Nakhimov is also included in its composition, then I will envy even AUS!
        3. To the account of VNEU. Work continues. But even without this, we had “Crystal-27” on the B-90, which provided scuba diving for 90 days. And now the LIAB has been installed on the SPB, and it dives for 15 days. Not all that, but still not 4 days on acid...
        4. I really hope that the new Civil Code of the Navy and the new Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation will force the fat cats from USC to get down to business. It’s not without reason that VTB Bank also tied GDP to this cart. But the main thing is still ARPK and PLA SN, Khabarovsk is on the way...
        Somehow, though. Yeah.
        1. 0
          15 May 2024 23: 13
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          I don’t object to the “old BODs”, although they have undergone (are undergoing) modernization. But the new frigates (22350/22350.1) were not gathered in a bunch on the Northern Fleet so that they could fulfill the role of the MPK.

          Actually, both of them have very good GAK + PLO helicopters on board. Those. to provide anti-aircraft defense during deployment to a combat deployment area, both 1155 and 22350 are ideal. And with their air defense systems they can provide zonal air defense against enemy anti-submarine aircraft. And she (PLO aviation) will definitely get there.
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          This is the most formidable KUG with Zircons, which can upset any adversary naval base,

          With a Zircon range of 1000+ km. They can easily shoot back from the cover area and submarine screen. Just provide target designation.
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          And if Nakhimov is also included in its composition, then I will envy even AUS!

          “Nakhimov” is being driven out of the running this year, and “Kuznetsov” too. If everything goes as it should, then if not by the end of this year, then next year they will definitely be back in action. And then this “sweet couple” will radically strengthen the surface forces of the Northern Fleet.
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          . And now the LIAB has been installed on the SPB, and it dives for 15 days.

          Come on ?? I haven't heard, I've been waiting, but I'm very glad that I already have.
          15 days, of course, is not 21 days like the Japanese, but the trouble is the beginning - you can add batteries. If only the Ladas went into production faster. And drive at all capacities, for all fleets and for all allies. At maximum speed. It would be nice to organize their construction in the Far East.
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          I really hope that the new Civil Code of the Navy and the new Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation will force the fat cats from USC to get down to business.

          So they fired all the previous top executives (it’s a pity they didn’t put them in prison) and reassigned them to VTB. Now VTB is establishing management there. Funding also comes through him. In addition, now it is Patrushev, in the status of assistant to the president, who will oversee shipbuilding.

          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          But the main thing is still ARPK and PLA SN, Khabarovsk is on the way...

          Nuclear-powered ships have been 2-3 in recent years. per year they rent. Plus, the modernization of MAPLs (971 and 945 Ave.) and SSGNs (Loaves) has now gone to as many as 3 shipyards.
    2. +1
      15 May 2024 10: 42
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      I would like to know how things are going with PLO exits from bases.

      The author tactfully kept silent about this, apparently fearing further accusations of defeatist sentiments. And with this matter, we really had a failure before, no matter what Former Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Chernavin, who commanded the fleet at that time, said. Accusing someone of being malicious is the same as justifying your mistakes and mistakes. The Americans felt quite at ease in Peter the Great Bay, and on the island. Askold, who blocked the approaches to our main bases of the Pacific Fleet surface fleet in the west. Shooter and submarine in b. Pavlovsky specifically left traces of their week-long stay as a greeting to our anti-submarine forces and border guards. A friend of mine, who served as a strategist in the Northern Fleet, talked about the mysterious Quakers he heard at every exit. And only with Chernavin everything was good and wonderful.
  5. +3
    15 May 2024 06: 19
    I remember "Behemoth -2", I served at the KSF at that time. I read many articles about this operation. I remember earlier, the authors convinced us that in our navy there was only one such crew, which had been wasted for two years, but with the Penguins, each crew of the strategist’s boat could fire a salvo with a full load of ammunition.
    1. +3
      15 May 2024 06: 56
      Ah, We were preparing boats in Severodvinsk, both for the first unsuccessful launch and for the second successful salvo.
  6. 0
    15 May 2024 07: 06
    Novel! Thank you for the material, I wanted to load the free (for now) brain cells with information... BUT!!! stop
    Somehow I doubted the truth of this passage, namely the incredible complexity of the work:
    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 weighed 33,3 tons! 16 missiles – correspondingly, almost 533 tons! This means that work begins in the bilge, which is blowing ballast must compensate for these 533 tons. 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?

    Firstly, during a salvo, sixteen missiles are fired at intervals of 20 seconds...
    Secondly, the displacement of the nuclear submarine = 18 tons...
    Thirdly, 33 tons is 3% of the displacement, and 0 tons is 18%, respectively...
    How can you imagine this? A man swimming underwater with two kg of weights... Try it if you have been (have tried) spearfishing. Of course, the human body is not a submarine, but still... The crew of a nuclear submarine is engaged in learning to control all the systems of the nuclear submarine...
    1. -1
      15 May 2024 11: 16
      Are you related to the submarine fleet? And do you know why, We fire a salvo of 4 missiles, and the Americans fire a salvo of two missiles? And why, in the entire history of the submarine, were only one successful out of two, an experimental salvo of 16 missiles carried out? Oh, the Americans have boats with 24 missiles.
      1. -1
        15 May 2024 12: 11
        Quote: Sergey39
        Are you related to the submarine fleet?

        Are you related to the submarine fleet?
        Did Roman Skomorokhov ask you to intercede? He himself is part of the group of moderators, if anything...
        I have the right to express doubts that arose while reading...
        * * *
        I was finishing my service in the Novgorod region and could not even know about the salvo of the Northern Fleet nuclear submarine. But, judging by the dirk, do you have any weighty arguments, claims, or something substantive to say?
  7. 0
    15 May 2024 08: 00
    Thus, in 1988, the “Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America on notification of launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles” was signed and came into force on May 31, 1988. Something doesn’t fit with the deathly silence in 1991. I liked the article A country that has gone off the rails under the influence of Western democracy is scary. This is really just a “northern fur-bearing animal”; if something like this happens again, I’m afraid we won’t survive, we no longer have the safety margin that we inherited from the USSR.
  8. +2
    15 May 2024 08: 12
    Victory in a nuclear conflict will be very unique.

    In the event of a general nuclear conflict with NATO, the population of Russia will immediately decrease by 1/3 - 1/2, we will be left with 70 to 90 million - along with the cripples. We will focus primarily on survival. Even if the United States suffers in the same way (and this is unlikely, we still have to cover Europe, and we have fewer opportunities than the USSR and its allies had), it means that we will try to restore controllability and defend ourselves from the pack of small enemies that are found in abundance on our borders and who will not participate in a nuclear conflict. Some of these enemies are considered our allies today, but this is a temporary phenomenon. Perhaps individual fragments of the territory will separate out and become either independent or will receive protection from their neighbors in order to avoid destruction.

    China, not believing its luck, will also take advantage of the situation.

    I am considering the situation when we won, that is, the enemy no longer makes any efforts against us and left us alone, giving us the Ukrainian nuclear desert as a souvenir.

    Therefore, in general, there is no point in shooting missiles at us, the majority of the population. For the hungry crowd, which wanders from the ruins of their city in the direction where there is food and no radiation, it will be very little consolation that in place of Washington there is now a huge crater. In addition, the good news about this may not reach people who do not have electricity.
    1. -3
      15 May 2024 09: 21
      Quote: S.Z.
      It will be very little consolation that in place of Washington there is now a huge crater. In addition, the good news about this may not reach people who do not have electricity.

      Katz offers to give up?
      This story has other possible endings. When the enemy is completely destroyed by a pre-emptive strike, and we still have at our disposal the lion's share of strategic nuclear forces ready for use. So that no neighbors/enemies covet and maintain order in the post-apocalyptic world.
      1. -3
        15 May 2024 10: 16
        "Katz offers to surrender?"

        No, because no one threatens us.

        “This story also has other options for ending. When the enemy is completely destroyed by a pre-emptive strike, and we still have at our disposal the lion’s share of ready-to-use strategic nuclear forces. So that no neighbors/enemies covet and maintain order in the post-apocalyptic world.”

        There is no such option, someone deceived you. But there is an option to prevent nuclear war.
        1. +1
          15 May 2024 10: 49
          Quote: S.Z.
          there is an option to prevent nuclear war.

          This means giving up after all.
          1. 0
            15 May 2024 11: 03
            Quote: S.Z.
            there is an option to prevent nuclear war.

            This means giving up after all.

            Do you seriously think that if we don’t start a war with the United States, we will have to surrender? :) Why such disbelief in the future of Russia?
            1. 0
              15 May 2024 11: 43
              Preparedness for war is the best way to avoid it. We are dealing with complete scumbags and the only thing that can stop them now is an animal fear of their own death. It was for this purpose that at one time they were shown some means of achieving this.
              And I believe in the future of my country.
              1. +1
                15 May 2024 12: 41
                Belief in a bright future is good, but it is better when it is based on knowledge. Being prepared for war does not mean wanting to attack first. There is no such need.
                1. +1
                  15 May 2024 12: 48
                  Quote: S.Z.
                  Being prepared for war does not mean wanting to attack first. There is no such need.

                  It's not up to you to decide. And not for me. This possibility and obligation is spelled out in the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation. And the introduction of such a clause was announced personally by the President.
                  1. -1
                    15 May 2024 13: 15
                    Quote: bayard
                    It's not up to you to decide. And not for me. This possibility and obligation is spelled out in the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation. And the introduction of such a clause was announced personally by the President.


                    I carefully read both the doctrine and the president's words about changing it. So far I have not seen anything like what you are talking about.

                    "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened . "

                    Where does it say that we are going to attack first?
                    1. 0
                      15 May 2024 14: 24
                      Quote: S.Z.
                      I carefully read both the doctrine and the president's words about changing it. So far I have not seen anything like what you are talking about.

                      You didn't read and listen carefully. The possibility of a pre-emptive strike is spelled out in the Doctrine and voiced by the President.
                      And weren’t you (England, France) the first to voice the threat of a nuclear strike on us, and be the first? Do you think that we should treat this as a “joke”?
                      Seriously ?
                      “We will send our troops to fight against Russia, but if you start killing them, we will strike first” - Macron in a free paraphrase.
                      And something similar from an Indian in the role of the English Prime Minister.
                      And now we should look forward to the fulfillment of this with delight?
                      F-16 and "Mirage-2000" in Ukraine are NATO carriers of nuclear weapons against us. This is how we will classify it.
                      During the war .
                      Now ask, “What are we for?” .
                      Quote: S.Z.
                      are we going to attack first?

                      We have ALREADY been attacked.
                      What those two clowns said is a gauntlet thrown down to us.
                      The answer is ours.
                      1. -4
                        15 May 2024 15: 06
                        I not only carefully read the doctrine, I even gave you a quote from the doctrine itself. Where is the possibility of a first strike? There is only a response to aggression.

                        What can you say to a quote from the Doctrine, other than a bunch of propaganda cliches? :)

                        Don't read Soviet newspapers before lunch :)
                      2. +1
                        15 May 2024 16: 08
                        Quote: S.Z.
                        Where is the possibility of a first strike? There is only a response to aggression.

                        And to the threat of such aggression.
                        Or do you think that the threat of a nuclear strike from two other nuclear powers at once is not a sufficient threat?
                        NATO is waging a war with us on used territory, albeit mainly with the hands of the aborigines, but with its own weapons, under the control of its military personnel. And they say that if you win, we will launch a nuclear strike. We are winning.
                        Means what ?
                        Expect a blow from them?
                        Seriously ?
                        This is why ambassadors were called to point out the deepest misconception of their leadership on this matter.
                    2. +1
                      15 May 2024 14: 36
                      and also in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened. "

                      Here is a reason to be the first to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike, in accordance with the doctrine.
                      1. 0
                        15 May 2024 15: 08
                        “Here is a reason to be the first to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike, in accordance with the doctrine.”

                        “When the very existence of a state is threatened” - which state faces the threat of destruction? What country do you live in? :) Ukraine has a reason to use nuclear weapons, because it is not a fact that this country will exist for a long time, but they do not have nuclear weapons. And over Russia there is a cloudless sky.
                        .
                      2. 0
                        15 May 2024 15: 21
                        What does Ukraine have to do with it? There is a cloudless sky above you, but not above Belgorod, above other nearby cities, not yet. The reason will appear, “When the very existence of the state is threatened.”
                  2. 0
                    15 May 2024 13: 26
                    Quote: bayard
                    It's not up to you to decide. And not for me. This opportunity and obligation is spelled out in the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation.

                    Therefore, why not shout “Yes, I don’t care..., but we can all easily use one left, one hundred percent preemptive strike...” and other nonsense? It sounds, of course, a little stupid, but very patriotic!
                    It's time to grow up!
                    1. 0
                      15 May 2024 14: 35
                      There are no evil people who are good.
                      The hump will only fix the grave?
                      Sinister creatures are found in
                      Where "the nightingale's language" is.

                      There are simply no such words and terms in the Russian Language.

                      To your chagrin, I will add that tactical nuclear weapons strikes are also very likely at the places of arrival of NATO aircraft.
                      And don’t ask “what for?” The carolers themselves.
                      1. 0
                        15 May 2024 15: 09
                        "At the places of arrival of NATO aircraft, strikes from tactical nuclear weapons are also very likely."

                        Are you joking or delusional :)
                      2. +3
                        15 May 2024 15: 33
                        Do you think that it is possible to threaten a nuclear superpower (there are only two of them) with impunity?
                        The decision will be made by the president.
                        Remember what he said about NATO aviation on used territory? How will it be considered?
                        They threaten us with a nuclear strike (a threat to the very existence of Russia), they send their aircraft to the theater of operations, which are classified as carriers of nuclear weapons, and the Russian Federation conducts exercises on the use of non-strategic nuclear forces.
                        And what don’t you understand?
                      3. +1
                        15 May 2024 15: 57
                        Quote: bayard
                        There are no evil people who are good.
                        The hump will only fix the grave?...

                        I liked the poem, thank you! good
                        PS True, in Balashikha the “nightingale’s language” is not very common.
                      4. 0
                        15 May 2024 16: 18
                        Quote: Good evil
                        In the municipality of Balashikha, the “nightingale’s language” is not very common.

                        Where did the Evil Ones come from in Balashikha? Sinister only in Square. And in Balashikha there are beautiful girls. Well, there were also some serious guys, I haven’t been there for a long time.
                        I lived in Zarya for 1,5 years, but it was in the mid-90s, then there was still an Air Defense Headquarters there.
                        And now in Donetsk.
                      5. 0
                        15 May 2024 16: 25
                        N. Miletus should know. Near.
        2. +2
          15 May 2024 22: 07
          Quote: S.Z.
          because no one threatens us.

          Are you serious? Or are you blind-deaf and for this reason don’t watch TLV, don’t surf websites on your computer, don’t read the (electronic) press... And statements like “we need to inflict a strategic defeat”, divide up too large a territory, liberate indigenous peoples enslaved by the Russians - - for you the revelations of St. Luke!?
          Quote: S.Z.
          There is no such option, someone deceived you.

          Are you serious?
          Quote: S.Z.
          But there is an option to prevent nuclear war.

          ONLY if we are head and shoulders above NATO in strategic weapons. Or, at least, have a “wunderwaffe”!
          Because the other side believes that we can be defeated... And if such a chance is presented, they will certainly take advantage of it.
          IMHO.
      2. +2
        15 May 2024 10: 18
        Well, tell us how you will destroy American submarines, on which most of their nuclear weapons are based, with a preemptive strike.
        1. -3
          15 May 2024 11: 05
          Quote: Kmon
          Well, tell us how you will destroy American submarines, on which most of their nuclear weapons are based, with a preemptive strike.

          In the databases. Where most of these submarines are permanently located.
          Everything else is done by forming a tidal wave front by synchronously detonating several bottom charges of special power. This also applies to Europe.
          Some of the forces on duty in positional areas will, of course, survive and fire a salvo, but this will be much less than a direct exchange of blows. The missile defense system will also make its contribution. If the Enemy has set as its goal to destroy us as a state and as a People, then the Enemy must be destroyed at the first attempt to begin the implementation of its plan. It's simple .
          1. -2
            15 May 2024 12: 42
            “If the Enemy has set as its goal to destroy us as a state and as a People, then the Enemy must be destroyed at the first attempt to begin implementing its plan. It’s simple.”

            Do not read Soviet newspapers before dinner.
          2. 0
            15 May 2024 13: 03
            About half of the submarines are constantly on duty; in the event of a threatened period (it is impossible to miss a mass exit of enemy submarines into the ocean to strike), all of them will go out into the ocean. Tidal wave in the open ocean? Which will cover submarines in the depths? Maybe he will also detect them first with the magic of the hats? These fantasies have nothing to do with reality.
            1. -1
              15 May 2024 14: 07
              Why hit on the hands, let's hit in the head.
              We'll sprinkle it with chalk and hit it.
              Quote: Kmon
              Tidal wave in the open ocean?

              Of course not . This is for your coasts. On both sides of the Atlantic. Up to 500 km. deep into the territory. What will happen to your boats is not even the second question.
              Quote: Kmon
              These fantasies have nothing to do with reality.

              That’s why we spent so much time and effort to give you such a Miracle. Crawl into your kennels, have sex reassignment surgery for yourself, if you haven’t already, find yourself a Negro lover, and you will be “happiness”. As the late mother bequeathed.
              And no one will touch you.
              Everything else was told to your ambassadors in our Foreign Ministry.
      3. +2
        15 May 2024 11: 59
        The option with a pre-emptive strike of strategic nuclear forces and other suitable means is actually the only one that works. He can bring real victory. The rest are from the category of Goebbels' Vergeltungswaffe.
        1. 0
          15 May 2024 12: 44
          “The option with a pre-emptive strike of strategic nuclear forces and other suitable means is actually the only one that works.”

          The only workable option is not to start a nuclear war.
          1. 0
            15 May 2024 12: 52
            Quote: S.Z.
            The only workable option is not to start a nuclear war.

            Does the enemy think otherwise? Will you wait for the blow and then turn the other cheek?
            This point (preemptive strike) is spelled out in the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation and the president explained it.
            1. -2
              15 May 2024 13: 18
              “Does the enemy think otherwise? Will you wait for the blow and then turn the other cheek?
              This point (preemptive strike) is spelled out in the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation and the president explained it"

              That's how it is in the doctrine.

              "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened . "

              Where is the pre-emptive strike? They attack us - we hit back. Or do you have another Doctrine?
              1. -1
                15 May 2024 15: 21
                Quote: S.Z.
                They attack us - we hit back. Or do you have another Doctrine?

                We have ALREADY been attacked.
                NATO troops are ALREADY fighting against us - the French Foreign Legion, English special forces, Polish special forces, the headquarters are led by NATO officers and generals, British and French officers are programming the Kyrgyz Republic for attacks on Russia. American satellites guide Ukrainian drones. NATO AWACS and RTR aircraft control used airspace, and their satellites conduct reconnaissance in favor of these gangs.
                England and France have declared their readiness to launch nuclear strikes on Russia in the event of the defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine... This is not a threat to the very existence of Russia?? And if not, what kind of threat can be considered such?
                So all the conditions have ALREADY been met.
                Everything is according to doctrine.
                Quote: S.Z.
                Where is the pre-emptive strike?

                Well, we conducted exercises on delivering such strikes with non-strategic nuclear weapons. Before a responsible task, you definitely need to practice. We trained.
                Why are you surprised?
                Why did you not like the Doctrine?
          2. +2
            15 May 2024 22: 35
            Quote: S.Z.
            The only workable option is not to start a nuclear war.

            We are for it"! But since 2012, they have been training to deliver a QUICK GLOBAL STRIKE to us. And what can you say to this, dear public? For your information:
            In 2002, the global strike mission was made the responsibility of the Unified Strategic Command (USC). In June 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty. On February 28, 2010, the White House announced the launch of the BSU program. On April 11, 2010, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the United States is already capable of launching a “Prompt Global Strike.”
            On April 27, 2017, a representative of the General Staff of the Russian Federation announced that The US is preparing for a surprise nuclear strike on Russia.
            If there is anything essentially (only essentially! blah-blah is not necessary, you are not Gorbachev) please tell the esteemed public.
        2. -3
          15 May 2024 13: 13
          By definition, there can be no victory in a nuclear war, because... a retaliatory strike is guaranteed.
          1. -1
            15 May 2024 15: 10
            "By definition, there cannot be victory in a nuclear war, since a retaliatory strike is guaranteed."

            The one who does not participate in it will win. And there are some!
            1. +1
              15 May 2024 16: 15
              Quote: S.Z.
              The one who does not participate in it will win. And there are some!

              This is if this war does not cause global changes on the scale of the Earth. Otherwise, everything will be like in the classics:
              In an hour, those of you who remain alive will be jealous, hehe, of the dead.
          2. -3
            15 May 2024 21: 01
            Not guaranteed.
            Examine the reality of a pre-emptive disarming strike by the US Navy.
            He, due to his quantity, can do this.
            We cannot do this, simply because we do not have 80 nuclear submarines and a dozen modern SSBNs.
            1. osp
              +1
              16 May 2024 03: 32
              Why did you forget about the British and French SSBNs?
              There are 8 of them, at least half of which are on combat duty.
              They are found in both the North and Mediterranean Seas.
              And if something happens, they will also shoot along with the American ones.
              The French generally have modern submarines and the latest missiles.
      4. +1
        15 May 2024 12: 25
        the enemy is completely destroyed by a pre-emptive strike
        Good old dreams that “we will glass everyone and no one will be able to catch us.” This is impossible.
        1. -3
          15 May 2024 12: 54
          Quote: Bolt Cutter
          It's impossible.

          It's necessary .
          With you British (and migrants there) there is no other way.
          To clarify this, the ambassadors were also called to the Foreign Ministry.
          1. -1
            15 May 2024 12: 57
            With you British (and migrants there) there is no other way.
            Bombing and flashing a smile, being sure that no response will arrive, is quite in the spirit of the VO warriors, but this will not happen, if only because Britain has its own strategic nuclear forces.
            1. +2
              15 May 2024 13: 20
              “To bomb and flash a smile, being sure that no response will arrive, is quite in the spirit of VO warriors, but this will not happen, if only because Britain has its own strategic nuclear forces.”

              There were two such attempts - Hitler tried it in June and Japan tried it in December 1941. Both attempts were unsuccessful. Some people think that the third time will work. They are, of course, wrong.
              1. +1
                15 May 2024 13: 51
                Quote: S.Z.
                Hitler tried it in June and Japan tried it in December 1941. Both attempts were unsuccessful.

                So don't try, who is holding you back?
                It was explained to your ambassadors at the Foreign Ministry in Russian, English and French. Don't repeat other people's mistakes. Do not arm or sponsor fascists, do not get involved in our internecine dispute - not even just Slavs, but Russians among themselves.
                And you will live.
                1. -3
                  15 May 2024 15: 12
                  “So don’t try, who’s holding you back?”

                  Actually, you are talking about a sudden strike, and against the United States, which is not even directly involved in the conflict. That is, you follow in the footsteps of these individuals who were unlucky, with the hope that you will have better luck. :)
                  1. 0
                    15 May 2024 15: 49
                    Quote: S.Z.
                    Actually, you are talking about a sudden blow,

                    I'm talking about PROTECTION. And of course it will be sudden.
                    But he will forestall a strike on us.
                    Quote: S.Z.
                    and for the United States, which is not even directly involved in the conflict.

                    If the US is not participating, then who is participating?
                    Who organized and financed the coup in Kyiv in 2014?
                    Which normal people raised the fascists?
                    Who is inciting the second-hand to war until the last Ukrainian?
                    England
                    Yes.
                    France?
                    Yes .
                    A few dozen more US sixes?
                    Yes .
                    But all of the above are WHOSE sixes?
                    Quote: S.Z.
                    That is, you are following in the footsteps of these individuals,

                    Young man, there is no free space for swastikas on your charges. There is no need for Sumerian songs from 2014 here. Jump and he will let you go.
                    Lucky for those who are lucky.
            2. -1
              15 May 2024 13: 45
              Quote: Bolt Cutter
              Bombing and flashing a smile, being sure that no response will arrive, is quite in the spirit of the VO warriors, but this will not happen, if only because Britain has its own strategic nuclear forces.

              You don’t understand - there will be nothing left of England at all.

              "We have such a Miracle
              The sea will swell violently
              It will make noise, raise a Howl
              Alien will rush ashore
              Will spill out in a noisy run
              Won't stay on the shore
              Nothing, for hundreds of miles
              The King of the Sea will decide the Question."

              And what strategic nuclear forces your England has, the whole world admired during the last two tests.
              1. -3
                15 May 2024 13: 51
                There will be nothing left for England at all.
                There will be nothing left of the Russian millionaires either.
                the whole world admired
                A Russian submarine was once rescued by the Dutch, and the whole world admired it, so what?
                1. 0
                  15 May 2024 15: 39
                  Quote: Bolt Cutter
                  A Russian submarine was once rescued by the Dutch, and the whole world admired it, so what?

                  How many times have our sailors and border guards saved American and even British submarines from those stuck in the ice of our Arctic?
                  And yes, we also remember about Kursk.
                  Quote: Bolt Cutter
                  There will be nothing left of the Russian millionaires either.

                  You started this, but none of you will survive.

                  Crawl away and you will live.
                  1. -2
                    15 May 2024 15: 55
                    how many times have our sailors and border guards saved American and even English submarines from those stuck in the ice of our Arctic?
                    Zero times.
                    none of you will survive.
                    Few of you either. It will not be possible to bomb the whole of Britain to zero - the infrastructure here is too well developed, and the hospital in every town with a population of ten thousand is no worse equipped than in a Russian population of one million. But in Russia, the destruction of cities with a population of half a million or more will lead to the collapse of the Federation; without transport hubs, the province will simply live its own life. And even without energy in Russia, the first winter will be the last for many; in England, communications outside the walls of buildings are laid without problems. Another problem is that after spending a significant part of the bombs on Britain and taking terrible revenge, you will have to face China and the United States and their nuclear arsenals. Something like this.
                    1. 0
                      15 May 2024 23: 49
                      Quote: Bolt Cutter
                      Zero times.

                      YouTube is full of videos about how our sailors and the border guards of the US and English submarines (once they both got stuck right next to each other) were sawed out with chainsaws. Your submarines don’t know how to break ice, nor do they have additional protection. There were many such cases. And the submarines saved your owners.
                      Quote: Bolt Cutter
                      none of you will survive.
                      Few of you either.

                      So, with the persistence of suicides, you will continue to beg? And get offended, “what’s that for?” ? Do you even understand the absurdity of your behavior?
                      Get out of our land, have sex reassignment surgery, find a black man (Arab/Hindu/dog/horse) as your lover, enter into a “legal marriage” with a lampshade and live. For yourself and for yours.
                      And you will live.
                      Do you really don't want to live anymore?
                      Have you really shorted all the terminals there?
                      Quote: Bolt Cutter
                      It will not be possible to bomb the whole of Britain to zero

                      One or two bottom-based ammunition of special power and no British on the islands and surrounding areas. If you choose who to die and who to live on, I choose that you “just die,” bequeathed the Supreme Commander and the President of our country.
                      Once again, don’t interfere with us and our friends, and you will live.
                      until you yourself become extinct. For sodomites do not reproduce naturally. Only unnatural.
                      The threat of nuclear strikes against Russia was made by you (England, France). And after hearing our answer... are you hysterical?? BzD@NyL yourself, were you scared?
                      You have jeopardized the very existence of Russia, and do not be offended by what follows from this.
                      The US says "we will strike first".
                      England and France said "we will strike first"
                      And when they answered you that “no guys, we will warn you”... lol hysterical??
                      No, guys, get used to mirror answers. This will happen often now.
                      1. -3
                        15 May 2024 23: 55
                        Do you really don't want to live anymore?
                        Have you really shorted all the terminals there?
                        Even surprisingly, a specific manner of behavior is widespread exclusively among the post-Soviet people - to intimidate laughing But this doesn’t work in big politics, and even in the backstreets of St. Petersburg it often fails.
                        One or two bottom-based ammunition of special power and no British on the islands and surrounding areas.
                        Read a high school physics textbook Yes
                        YouTube is full of videos
                        How cats order pizza online smile .
                      2. -1
                        16 May 2024 04: 22
                        Quote: Bolt Cutter
                        A specific manner of behavior is widespread exclusively among the post-Soviet people - to intimidate

                        Where did Macron and his English colleagues get this from? Did they have a difficult Soviet past? laughing
                        Quote: Bolt Cutter
                        But this doesn’t work in big politics.

                        How does it work?
                        The Soviet Union shouted at the Anglos and Franks, together with Israel, who attacked Egypt, promised to start bombing these colonialists in a day, and immediately the silken aggressors pulled up their trousers and headed home.
                        Almost the same thing was said to the ambassadors - “don’t even think about it.”
                        Quote: Bolt Cutter
                        Read a high school physics textbook

                        Have you still not completed secondary education?
                        Remember the Fukushima tsunami? There are only 500 Kt. was .
                        When there was a wave in Indonesia it was several times larger. And these were single ammunition. Not ours. Therefore, those to whom the message is addressed know what awaits them.
                        And the USSR also had similar bottom mines. Were deployed. Proactively deployed.
                        But for now you are having fun, who knows how long you have left to have fun like this. With this kind of behavior.
                      3. 0
                        16 May 2024 09: 57
                        Remember the Fukushima tsunami? There are only 500 Kt. was .
                        When there was a wave in Indonesia it was several times larger. And these were single ammunition. Not ours
                        Neptune launched a nuclear program belay ? The rest of yours is just fairy tales.
                      4. 0
                        16 May 2024 18: 10
                        It's good that you think so.
                      5. 0
                        16 May 2024 18: 12
                        It's amazing that you believe otherwise.
                      6. 0
                        16 May 2024 18: 15
                        Knowledge is power .
                        The text is short.
                      7. 0
                        16 May 2024 18: 17
                        Brad is a grave. Even shorter.
              2. +1
                15 May 2024 16: 22
                Quote: bayard
                You don’t understand - there will be nothing left of England at all.

                The thought of this will undoubtedly warm the hearts of Russian survivors trying to survive in the face of destruction of almost everything. Industry is yok, energy is yok, oil and gas industry is yok, chemical industry is not just yok, but actively competes with radiation in terms of contamination of the environment. Transport without electricity and fuel is barely alive. Millionaires - yok, the survivors are crawling out of the concrete jungle left without amenities and food.
                In general, welcome to Somalia. But with sub-zero temperatures.
                1. 0
                  16 May 2024 00: 07
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  The thought of this will undoubtedly warm the hearts of the surviving Russians

                  You have missed the main point.
                  The United States has declared the right to make the first strike.
                  England and France announced that they would strike Russia first.
                  The answer of our president in the face of a threat to the very existence of Russia - “we will forestall you” ... is surprising? Rejection?
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Millionaires - yok, the survivors are crawling out of the concrete jungle left without amenities and food.
                  In general, welcome to Somalia.

                  Do you want this to happen unilaterally?

                  For us, children of the Cold War, the idea that this could very well happen is, in principle, familiar. It's like the Japanese living on their islands with the constant threat of dying from an earthquake or tsunami. Or you don’t understand that we are already at war with NATO. While it is cold on the outer contour and hot in our Northern Black Sea region. But the enemy is raising the temperature. Do you want to boil like a frog?
                  This is not our initiative, and not our choice. But this is our answer.
                  Or don’t you see that it’s mostly citizens of NATO countries and Ukraine who argue with me? This is Khutzpah from their side. But why do you need complicity in this game?
                  I repeat - on our part, the readiness to launch a pre-emptive strike is a response to THEIR (USA, England, France and their Tobacco) intention to strike at us FIRST.

                  And I do not at all wish harm and troubles to my compatriots. I just want the damage from the inevitable to be as small as possible. Realize this.
                  Sincerely . hi
          2. -2
            15 May 2024 21: 05
            Listen, explain to everyone why you immediately classify any Russian who knows more about weapons than you do, who does not support your fantasies, as foreigners?
            I live in Samara.
            A man from Balashikha wrote:
            But you don't care about that.
            It's not our problem.
            And in you.
            You simply don’t really know anything, but live in some kind of alternative reality.
            1. 0
              16 May 2024 02: 05
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Why do you immediately classify any Russian who knows more than you about weapons, who does not support your fantasies, as foreigners?

              Young man, at least go to my profile, read what I write in the comments, maybe then your idea of ​​competence and “knowledge about weapons” will become clearer for you. And don't poke someone you don't know. You have no idea about the topic of the dispute and the meaning of the content. Be careful .
              To begin with, pay attention to the recent words of the presidents of our Union State on this topic. On WHEN, AFTER WHAT and in response to WHAT, they made statements on this topic, why and in response to what the exercises of non-strategic nuclear forces of the Union State are being conducted.
              I remind you. In the face of the imminent and very likely collapse of the fronts of the Ukrainian Armed Forces under the attacks of our troops and in connection with the problems of supplying the Ukrainian Armed Forces with shells, air defense systems and other support, England and France made statements about their readiness to launch nuclear strikes on Russia. Direct text and first persons. And about sending their military contingents to the Northern Black Sea region. Part of the French Foreign Legion is already in Ukraine, the first prisoners are there.
              So Macron stated in plain text that he would send in his contingent if Russia broke through the front and the Ukrainian Armed Forces were defeated. That in this case he will not only send in troops, but also use nuclear weapons. And since he is not limited by any treaties, he will be the first to deliver a nuclear strike. The British side also stated the same.
              This is a threat to the very existence of Russia. See the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation and explanations on this topic by the President of the Russian Federation.
              It was in response to this that nuclear forces and operational-tactical and medium-range weapons were put on alert and conducted. That is why the ambassadors of two nuclear NATO countries were called, where they explained how, with what and for what they would be beaten if their plan was carried out. It was also announced by the President of the Russian Federation that NATO aircraft on used territory will be considered carriers of nuclear weapons with the corresponding conclusions.
              You don’t allow the idea that Ukrainian pilots will sit on these planes, and Ukrainian technicians will service them?
              Once again, the nuclear NATO countries announced to the whole world their readiness to strike Russia first, assigned it a missile defense system, and are ready to send in their aircraft there. So don't be surprised by the president's words.
              And if you’re too lazy to listen to your president (since from Samara), then at least listen to Lukashenko.
              By the way, I'm from Donetsk. For me, the war has been going on for 10 years, unlike you, who are relaxed and afraid of losing comfort.
              The war with NATO is already underway.
              For Russia - the third year.
              For us in Donbass it is the eleventh.
              Quote: SovAr238A
              I live in Samara.
              A man from Balashikha wrote:

              "The Man from Balashikha" has already introduced himself. But his nickname is exclusively Ukrainian. So, perhaps it’s “uglyant”, perhaps it’s just an exotic word from a cartoon (like there was a Ukrainian one) that I liked. By the way, I lived there. In a closed military town (then about 25 thousand population), the Air Defense Main Headquarters. When air defense and the air force had not yet been combined. Then they added Space there and it became VKS, but with headquarters in a different place. Friends laughed then - “now we are all astronauts.”
              But this mainly concerned “Bolt Cutter,” who actually lives in England, is himself a Baltic by origin, and in this conflict positions himself as an enemy of Russia, a “friend of Ukraine,” and an admirer of his new “homeland.”
              So I know enough “about weapons”; it was part of my responsibilities and corresponds to the profile of my training.
      5. -2
        15 May 2024 20: 46
        There are no other options.
        We will not be able to make any pre-emptive strike.
        We don't have such opportunities.

        They have the opportunity to make a pre-emptive strike.

        Learn materiel, not agitation with fumes.
        1. 0
          16 May 2024 02: 02
          Quote: SovAr238A
          There are no other options.
          We will not be able to make any pre-emptive strike.
          We don't have such opportunities.

          And the young man then says something about “knowledge of weapons”?
          Since 2017, information about the Status-6 program has been open. There was even animation provided. Without unnecessary details, but “weapons specialists” like you have been talking about the stupidity of the leadership ever since. But in the USA they immediately took it seriously. Moreover, by that time they already knew about the existence of such a program and such opportunities with us. And this is not at all an analogue of the “Dead Hand”. Not a “retaliatory strike weapon,” although this could also be the case if we miss the flash. This is completely different . This weapon incl. preemptive deployment ... it’s not always a “torpedo” that will be thrown across the oceans and roar with propellers throughout the entire ocean. And specialized carriers have also been built specifically for them and continue to be built on the basis of the Borey Project submarine (and one has already been built on the basis of the extended Baton Project 949). For them, two divisions were formed in two fleets and two secretive and protected bases were completed - in wet adit docks under basalt mountains, which are capable of withstanding a medium-power nuclear warhead strike. . You can continue to consider this “fairy tales” and “cutting,” but this is being done by the State Administration for State Administration, which also has several other submarines as carriers of deep-sea vehicles. This is open information, but not for the lazy, superficial and incurious. This is (including) a weapon of a pre-emptive strike.
          Quote: SovAr238A
          They have the opportunity to make a pre-emptive strike.

          Preemptive if he anticipates the enemy's strike. In this case, the USA, England and France openly and officially announced their readiness to launch a PREVENTIVE strike. Those. just strike first.
          Therefore, our proactive strike is PREVENTIVE. And this is our ANSWER, and not some “aggressive statements”.
          You have already slept through NATO's aggression against us, and now you are outraged that we intend to... respond to aggression??
          Why is there such a liberal-hato extreme mess in your head?
          Quote: SovAr238A
          They have the opportunity to make a pre-emptive strike.

          PREVENTIVE. It is they who intend to strike us first and this is in their doctrinal documents. And it was officially announced.
          And such a blow can be delivered by any country that has the means of delivery and destruction for this purpose. The question is the quality, quantity, age of ammunition and carriers, and their current technical condition.
          We are doing much better with all this. Fresher, younger, more modern.
  9. -5
    15 May 2024 08: 29
    Quote: S.Z.
    Victory in a nuclear conflict will be very unique.

    Well, this is a view from 50 years ago, this is precisely why the Americans have a “lightning” strike strategy, when key control centers are quickly withdrawn. That is, if it was profitable for them, they would have used this 20 years ago (with impunity).
    1. +1
      15 May 2024 10: 18
      Quote: Vladimir80
      Well, this is a view from 50 years ago, this is precisely why the Americans have a “lightning” strike strategy, when key control centers are quickly withdrawn. That is, if it was profitable for them, they would have used this 20 years ago (with impunity).


      I agree, but then there was the possibility of complete mutual destruction, now, after the reduction of nuclear weapons, some hotheads think that they can win by delivering a surprise strike first. I think they are mistaken.
    2. +3
      15 May 2024 11: 54
      Quote: Vladimir80
      That is, if it was profitable for them, they would have used this 20 years ago (with impunity).

      It’s beneficial for them, but scary. I don’t know if it’s a myth or not, but their command and control exercises on this issue have been held more than once. And every time it turned out that they got it, and quite a lot. I think they know the saying about it being smooth on paper. I hope better than our guarantor and General Staff)))
  10. +2
    15 May 2024 08: 29
    Quote: S.Z.
    Victory in a nuclear conflict will be very unique.

    Have you just discovered the meaning of the existence of nuclear weapons as a weapon of deterrence? It seems like it has long been a postulate that there will be no winners. But for some reason you have: just a crater in the place of Washington, but here we are all sad and stone age.
    1. 0
      15 May 2024 10: 21
      “Have you just discovered the meaning of the existence of nuclear weapons as a weapon of deterrence? It seems like a long-standing postulate that there will be no winners. But for some reason you have: just a crater in the place of Washington, but here we are all sad and stone age.”

      1. After the reduction of nuclear weapons, we are no longer talking about complete destruction.
      2. A funnel in the place of Washington or a funnel in the place of all US cities - is there a difference? Moreover, we will be able to cause less damage than them, for obvious reasons.
      1. +1
        15 May 2024 22: 57
        Quote: S.Z.
        we will be able to do less damage than them for obvious reasons.

        Do the Yankees have heavy ICBMs with MEGATON class beaters? Or do they have APNA with a 2 Mt head? Maybe they have GZO? Or are 90% of their WTOs autonomous and independent of GPS?
        Oh, I completely forgot! They have Yellowstone!!! Which will explode when a couple of BBs from the R-28 hit the caldera and, offended, will cover the entire territory of the United States with a 15 cm layer of volcanic ash... But this is after the tsunami from the Poseidons “washes away” the Atlantic, etc. coast of the States...
        Would you like to try? So the Yankees are also not very willing after repeatedly running through several options for a nuclear war with the Russian Federation.
        In addition, the Minutemen - late 30s, Ohio - are being withdrawn in 2027, and the collapse of the nuclear weapons complex... And who will be the winner???
    2. -1
      15 May 2024 21: 34
      Because we have cities and they have cities, these are two huge differences.
      Here we have real stone boxes in a very limited space, with a very crowded population.
      And they only have high-rise buildings in downtowns. And the rest of the population (the overwhelming majority) are scattered over a huge area.
      A huge amount of their real industry is located not in large cities, but in what we call towns and villages.

      And note that most of their Walmart-type hypermarkets are also located either on the outskirts or even outside the city. Not only for the purpose of reducing the cost of construction, by the way.

      And with us everything is concentrated.
      All military enterprises in cities.
      All chemical industry is in the cities.
      All energy near cities and in cities.
      80% of the population in 20 cities, entirely built up with high-rise buildings.
      1. -1
        15 May 2024 21: 36
        Yes Yes. Secondary damaging factors of nuclear weapons in the USA do not work. After all, Walmort is on the outskirts. It's logical.
        1. -1
          15 May 2024 21: 51
          Well, how strong are the secondary signs?
          Do you remember the formula for the dependence of the front on the distance?

          Many people here believe that a 10, 20, 50 megaton underwater nuclear explosion can cause a destructive tsunami.
          Not understanding how much explosion energy is simply wasted on water evaporation (I’ll tell you 80% right away).
          Not understanding what kind of energy is needed for a tsunami like the Asian one in 2004, where not everything was washed away and on the most flat terrain no more than 300-500 meters deep (I’ll say right away that an underwater nuclear explosion of at least 400 gigatons is needed, if translated into net energy joules taking into account losses due to water evaporation, that is, almost 4 orders of magnitude more than 50 megatons).
          So why listen to the Bayards, uneducated talkers?
  11. -1
    15 May 2024 08: 31
    Very informative article. Russia has lots of nuclear capable submarines. Russia has lots of friends in Latin America. A submarine provides more stealth than a bomber aircraft. So in 2024, Russia is capable of striking targets well inside USA.

    Alert. Today I have a thought about the software side implemented in different institutions. Yesterday Microsoft announced a 'software update' for Russian users. The source code of Microsoft/Apple products can't be audited. It poses a security risk. Microsoft/Apple products are safe only with internet or GPS turned off. We can't predict the connection nodes created by these products.

    Beware of using Microsoft/Google/Apple/Cisco products in (a) military installations (army, navy, airforce, aerospace and missile commands), (b) power plants (hydoelectric, thermal, nuclear etc), (c) financial institutions including banks and ATM's, (d) hospitals,(e) government institutions and DUMA, (f) Academic institutions and research centers, (g) air traffic control (ATC) and aviation management, (h) weather forecasting, (Yo) agriculture,(j) water supply and sewage management, (k) disaster management,(l) museums, historical sites & national archives/libraries, (m) customs and border controll, (n) stock market, (o) space research, (p) mining and excavation, (q) public transportation like railways etc.

    A customized version of Linux or Android (specifically made for Russia. example - Astra Linux) is recommended.
  12. +5
    15 May 2024 08: 32
    ...the mines begin to fill with water. All 16 at once. The boat immediately begins to increase its weight; one R-29D missile weighed 33,3 tons! 16 missiles – correspondingly, almost 533 tons! This means that work begins for the bilge workers, who must compensate for these 533 tons by blowing ballast...

    Those. Before the silos are opened, the rockets in them weigh nothing? And as soon as the silo hatches were opened, the total weight of the missiles must immediately be compensated, right?! That's how it works in the text!
    1. +2
      15 May 2024 11: 49
      Quote: Yuri77
      ...the mines begin to fill with water. All 16 at once. The boat immediately begins to increase its weight; one R-29D missile weighed 33,3 tons! 16 missiles – correspondingly, almost 533 tons! This means that work begins for the bilge workers, who must compensate for these 533 tons by blowing ballast...

      Those. Before the silos are opened, the rockets in them weigh nothing? And as soon as the silo hatches were opened, the total weight of the missiles must immediately be compensated, right?! That's how it works in the text!

      No not like this. As soon as the hatches are opened, it is necessary to compensate for the weight of the water that has filled the space between the rocket and the mine, i.e. blow out the ballast. After the launch of the rocket, it is necessary to compensate for the difference in the weight of the rocket and the water that filled its volume as the rocket emerged, i.e. add more ballast, because a rocket is heavier than water.
      1. -3
        15 May 2024 21: 36
        Not harder.
        Believe me.
        The volume of the rocket is exactly equal to 33 cubic meters of water and the mass of the rocket is the same as the volume of water.
        1. 0
          16 May 2024 06: 57

          Not harder.
          Believe me.

          No, I don’t believe that the rocket even has neutral buoyancy. Even if we consider a liquid-propellant rocket engine in which the fuel components, suppose, have a slightly lower density than water.
          You see, absolutely all planes sink when they fall into the water. And the missiles have an even denser layout.

          The volume of the rocket is exactly equal to 33 cubic meters of water and the mass of the rocket is the same as the volume of water.

          Well, here's the same BDRM and blue. Volume 33 cubic meters you say? And the starting weight is 40 tons...
          1. 0
            16 May 2024 12: 20
            The mass of the R-29 rocket is about 34 tons.
            Which is at the level of 2.8-3.2% difference in general
            1. 0
              16 May 2024 13: 02
              Quote: SovAr238A
              The mass of the R-29 rocket is about 34 tons.
              Which is at the level of 2.8-3.2% difference in general

              Do you understand the difference between the mass of the rocket and the STARTING mass of the rocket?
              1. 0
                16 May 2024 13: 18
                And what does Sineva have to do with it, which appeared 10 years later than Operation Behemoth-2" ?????????
                Why are you dragging it in here?

                The author of the article has an R-29 without any modifications, and it is its mass of 33.3 tons that the author writes in the article.
                Look at its dimensions, volume, and weight.
                1. +1
                  16 May 2024 13: 36
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  And what does Sineva have to do with it, which appeared 10 years later than Operation Behemoth-2" ?????????
                  Why are you dragging it in here?

                  “Behemoth-2” was carried out at 21 hours 9 minutes on August 6, 1991 and was a complete success: 407 missiles were launched from the K-16 Novomoskovsk nuclear submarine (2 combat R-29RM and 14 dummy missiles equivalent in ballistics)

                  Rocket mass, kg 40 300
                  Length, m 14,8
                  Diameter, m 1,9

                  The volume turns out to be approximately the same 40 cubic meters.
                  Your truth! hi
                  Then the task comes down to balancing the incoming water into the voids between the rocket and the shaft when the lid is opened.
  13. -1
    15 May 2024 08: 45
    IMHO, the author adjusts everything to his vision.
    After all, Israel seemed to have fought off hundreds of simultaneous launches from Iran, missing only a few.
    And they wrote different things about Boats, right here on the website, and about rockets.

    A simultaneous salvo is good. If the missiles need to be disposed of. And experience it at the same time.
    But it’s not for nothing that the amers launch them one at a time to check their functionality. They cost money.
    Etc.
  14. -7
    15 May 2024 09: 10
    To the critics and non-believers: we can do it. One or two BRDMs are hitting Europe from the White Sea area, and two or three are launching missiles towards North America from a refuge in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. And that’s all: Europe will evaporate, and the USA will lose from 60 to 150 million souls instantly...
  15. -4
    15 May 2024 09: 55
    For quite a long time I have been reading analytics on the construction of watercraft for the Navy about all these games with modular corvettes-underfrigates, the lack of possibility not only of building something large-capacity for the distant ocean zone, but even of modernizing the same Orlans (I’m silent about our coal-powered aircraft carrier).
    Taking this into account, as well as an interesting idea expressed not so long ago on the pages of this resource, that the experience of the “use” of the Black Sea Fleet in the Northern Military District clearly indicates that in the era of the massive use of unmanned technologies, large surface ships, if not lost their relevance, then their role is certainly subject to creative rethinking, and in fact, the article above - I involuntarily ask myself one simple question. If “on the water” everything is so, let’s say diplomatically, vaguely, then maybe it makes sense not to puff up, but to direct these resources “underwater”, where the relevance only grows from year to year? Maybe we’ll finally get to Lad with an unparalleled anaerobic plant, following the rest of the world? Or a modern torpedo with under-ice firing, close to the combat outposts...
    For potential opponents in the west and in the east, the submarine is, IMHO, the MOST difficult attack vector to parry - so maybe it makes sense to finally join Rosatom and become ahead of the rest in terms of nuclear submarines, SSBNs and SSGNs? Maybe not in terms of quantity, but at least in terms of quality? I am sure that the “elusive” Russian nuclear submarines will be a wonderful deterrent!
  16. +2
    15 May 2024 10: 24
    Quote: Ezekiel 25-17
    To the critics and non-believers: we can do it. One or two BRDMs are hitting Europe from the White Sea area, and two or three are launching missiles towards North America from a refuge in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. And that’s all: Europe will evaporate, and the USA will lose from 60 to 150 million souls instantly...


    1. What for?
    2. How much will we lose? All 140 million or someone will remain?
    1. +2
      15 May 2024 11: 41
      Quote: S.Z.
      1. What for?
      2. How much will we lose? All 140 million or someone will remain?

      1. In response to NATO aggression. For example.
      2. They will stay, both here and here. But this will be a completely different civilization...
      1. +1
        15 May 2024 12: 47
        In response to NATO aggression - understandable, but this is not the answer to the question “why”. It depends on what is considered aggression. But using nuclear weapons is suicide. However, we have a lot of suicides.
        1. +4
          15 May 2024 12: 52
          Quote: S.Z.
          understandable, but this is not the answer to the question “why”.

          Then, so as not to get a total genocide of Russians, which is tantamount to the same nuclear war.
          Quote: S.Z.
          It depends on what is considered aggression. But using nuclear weapons is suicide.

          For example, launching missiles at us.
          NATO attacks on Kaliningrad, with its occupation.
          The entry of NATO troops into Ukraine, with the destruction of our armed forces and the occupation of Crimea.
          Blockade of the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Finland.
          Etc. etc.
          1. +1
            15 May 2024 13: 24
            Everything you wrote is correct and I agree with it. It’s written in approximately the same way in our military doctrine, except that the word “Russians” is not there.

            Above, we were talking about being the first to suddenly launch a nuclear strike on the United States when they are not expecting it and this is our only step towards victory. This is what I don’t accept.

            And in my conversation with you, I missed the previous arguments, which is why there was a misunderstanding.
            1. +2
              15 May 2024 13: 31
              Quote: S.Z.
              Above, we were talking about being the first to suddenly launch a nuclear strike on the United States when they are not expecting it and this is our only step towards victory. This is what I don’t accept.

              Well, the main thing is that the responsible people there think the same! hi
              1. +2
                15 May 2024 15: 14
                “Well, the main thing is that the responsible people there think the same thing! hi”

                You can't argue with that. However, they don’t feel bad about them, they don’t have any reason to worry too much, they secretly rejoice at our discord.
                1. +1
                  15 May 2024 15: 18
                  Quote: S.Z.
                  You can't argue with that. However, they don’t feel bad about them, they don’t have any reason to worry too much, they secretly rejoice at our discord.

                  It's true. But I doubt their adequacy more and more, to be honest...
    2. -1
      16 May 2024 08: 45
      You have, to put it mildly, a somewhat strange view of things. At a minimum, for losses in the population of the United States and Russia in the event of a possible counter-missile nuclear strike. In the USA the population is 315 million people, with an average population density of 33 people/km2, in Russia there are 145 million with an average density of 8,6 people/km2. Yes, if we take it separately by region, then of course the density can differ by several times, or even orders of magnitude... So in the northeastern part of the USA the density is more than 100 people/km2, and in the European part of Russia it is about 60-70 people/km2. Those. US losses simply in terms of population density will be higher. Well, the most important thing is that you do not take into account one very significant point - unlike Russia, the USA is located at the junction of tectonic plates. And the well-known San Andreas and Yellowstone faults alone are worth it... If they are hit by warheads of sufficient power (which are in the arsenal of ICBMs), most of the United States may simply cease to exist... It’s not for nothing that there was a joke about the strait back in the Soviet years them. Stalin.
      Well, about China... if the third world war starts, then missiles will fly from everyone to everyone... just in case... And in China, in this case, the losses will amount to hundreds of millions... as in India
  17. +2
    15 May 2024 11: 39
    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.

    The author considers only one option, when the Russian Federation is the first and SUDDENLY to launch a global nuclear strike. Do we even have such a scenario in our doctrine? Do you have any plans? Were there any exercises? And the Americans are unlikely to sleep through the preparations for such a strike.
    At the same time, I know that the Americans have long been developing a global disarming strike against us. And the question of whether they will be able to disarm us or not, I think is quite worthy of attention. And what and how we will respond, if at all, is also very interesting to me.
    1. 0
      15 May 2024 14: 15
      Quote: Zoer
      The author considers only one option, when the Russian Federation is the first and SUDDENLY to launch a global nuclear strike.

      The author is far behind real life. He probably hasn’t heard that such things as early warning systems and missile defense have existed for a long time. That’s why he’s counting on a sudden preemptive strike, when megatons will suddenly fall on the adversary’s head, and he won’t have time to be surprised. But in fact, such suddenness is not worth talking about. And not even because of the early warning system, which will warn the mattresses about forty minutes in advance.
      War is always preceded by certain preparatory movements. This is putting the economy into war mode. Reactivation of strategic warehouses and other facilities. Dispersal of aviation, navy, and ground forces. And many, many other activities that cannot be hidden from the means of objective control and human intelligence. And these events take more than one day and are perfectly calculated by analysts from the relevant departments. In addition, betrayal by informed high-ranking officials cannot be ruled out (remember the recent arrests in the Moscow Region).
      These facts cancel the factor of 100% surprise, which somewhat reduces the temptation of a preemptive strike on the enemy. Unfortunately, it does not cancel it completely. Let's hope for the sanity of those who decide such issues!
      1. +1
        15 May 2024 14: 50
        Quote: Good evil
        War is always preceded by certain preparatory movements. This is putting the economy into war mode. Reactivation of strategic warehouses and other facilities. Dispersal of aviation, navy, and ground forces. And many, many other activities that cannot be hidden from the means of objective control and human intelligence.

        It’s even enough to simply bring all the nuclear submarines to the seas at the same time, and the PGRK to the ranges...
      2. +2
        15 May 2024 23: 12
        The United States quite seriously believes that it will be able to inflict BGU/MGU on us with BS and BD forces deployed in peacetime in the ROP (RBP). It is extremely difficult to parry such a blow. That’s why we have the “Siren” system in our database.
  18. 0
    15 May 2024 11: 45
    Quote: S.Z.
    because no one threatens us.

    This is Manilovism.
    1. -4
      15 May 2024 12: 49
      Quote: bayard
      because no one threatens us.

      This is Manilovism.


      This is knowing the facts. I think you also have no facts about when Russia would be attacked after 1941 - unless you consider propaganda and statements of shady individuals as facts.
      1. +1
        15 May 2024 14: 10
        Quote: S.Z.
        You also have no facts about when Russia would be attacked after 1941 - unless you consider propaganda and statements of shady personalities as facts.

        No one dared to attack/attack against a nuclear superpower. But there was a case when Türkiye, having joined NATO, announced that it would close the straits to the USSR. But when in response it was said that two or three thermonuclear munitions would open any straits, or create new ones... the Ottoman conceded. And the USSR Navy never had problems passing the straits.
        When Israel, England and France attacked Egypt, the USSR demanded to immediately stop the aggression and get out. Otherwise, within 24 hours he will begin the nuclear bombing of London and Paris.
        And (you might be surprised) - it helped.
        When the United States deployed its MRBMs in England and Turkey, the USSR carried out Operation Anadyr and deployed its MRBMs in Cuba. Things almost came to a nuclear war, but the USSR installed R-7 missiles at the launch pads and refueled them. The P-12 division in Cuba was put on full combat readiness, and Il-28 bombers with nuclear bombs, missile launchers on launchers and sea bottom landmines (2 pieces) were also put on readiness. And also our group of troops in Germany. The Americans did not know about all our gifts in Cuba at that time (neither about bottom mines, nor about missile launchers with nuclear warheads, nor about bombers with nuclear bombs) ... they even hoped that the already imported R-12 MRBMs did not have combat units and they should deliver later (they were wrong, of course). And you know - it helped. The whole world shook. Especially when a little later on Novaya Zemlya Kuzkina’s Mother introduced herself. At half its power.
        Or should I remind you about Chechnya? Who encouraged them then? Who pumped their proxies there? Chechens remember. They remember well who started the whole mess there.
        And who carried out the coup in my Ukraine in 2014?
        Not you ??
        Wasn't it an attack?
        Who created this Nazi bedlam on my land?
        Not you ?
        1. -1
          15 May 2024 15: 20
          “No one dared to attack/attack against a nuclear superpower in any way. But there was a case when Turkey, having joined NATO, announced that it would close the straits to the USSR. But when in response it was said that two or three thermonuclear munitions would open any straits, or make new ones ...Ottoman let it go"

          I have heard historical anecdotes, but they are just anecdotes.

          “And who carried out the coup in my Ukraine in 2014.
          Not you ??
          Wasn't it an attack?

          Who carried out the coup in the USSR? :) Human has committed stupidity. And the people actively voted for Yeltsin - I saw this myself. If there were normal life and rulers, there would be no revolutions, no coups, no Maidans.

          Therefore, foreign interference does occur - and will continue to occur - but the reasons are internal. By the way, we are not saints either, so it makes no sense to involve the moral side in foreign policy - there are ours and there are not ours, but otherwise everyone is the same.

          The capitalists didn’t divide the jackpot, so they started fighting. Our capitalists or strangers are all the same. For me, there are no “our capitalists” at all.
          1. -1
            15 May 2024 16: 49
            Quote: S.Z.
            The capitalists didn’t divide the jackpot, so they started fighting.

            Our capitalists were told “Give everything and die,” but they did not agree. And yes, “ours”, who are from the 90s, are especially wild. I knew them then, and quite odious ones at that.
            Quote: S.Z.
            Who carried out the coup in the USSR? :) Human has committed stupidity.

            It was nonsense then - a flooded sea. But it (this stupidity) was nurtured, educated, cherished for a very long time. Especially since 1985. And this is pure betrayal from the top. In 2014, the same thing happened, all the oligarchs stood up against Yanukovych, they thought it would be as usual - we’ll throw out this one, we’ll install a new one. And they are under the "surplus appropriation system" and fight. First to Donbass, then with Russia.
            Russia no longer had any other option but to start the Northeast Military District. Another thing is that because of treason and stupidity, instead of a quick and effective special operation (as dreamed), they ended up in a protracted war with the entire NATO on the territory of the used one. So now the tactical nuclear weapons have already been uncovered, although we are winning.
            Quote: S.Z.
            I have heard historical anecdotes, but they are just anecdotes.

            In fact, the case is real, but it spread as a joke.
        2. +2
          15 May 2024 16: 02
          Quote: bayard
          No one dared to attack/attack against a nuclear superpower.

          It’s downright awkward to remind about Argentina, which started a war with a nuclear power. wink
          1. +1
            15 May 2024 16: 51
            So the question was “Who attacked Russia after 1945?” . So I gave examples of how a kind word and a nuclear club work wonders.
  19. +2
    15 May 2024 13: 08
    This means that work begins in the bilge, which must compensate for these 533 tons by blowing ballast.

    Do the bilge trim the boat?
  20. +2
    15 May 2024 13: 23
    The SSBN is too large and a one-piece product to hope that its stealth will remain as an unshakable element. As I have already noted here several times, the number of enemies with missiles and large submarines armed with missiles in the United States is growing and, accordingly, their motivation will also grow to deploy a system for searching and detecting these submarines. Because this will no longer be just some kind of fight against the USSR submarine, it will be an element of their global dominance. They are investing and will continue to invest in this.
    In the era of UAVs, they will deploy atmospheric satellites or simply loitering high-altitude UAVs that will monitor significant water areas, and if they need to collect data from some autonomous systems, programmed to release an antenna if any light is detected.
    They will need systems of this kind in ANY CASE - to fight the fleet and submarines, to reduce uncertainty.
    Satellite Internet will also help them in collecting data, and they will use AI to process their array. Not much time will pass and all this secrecy will be very relative - will we be ready for the onset of these times? Are we preparing for this now?
  21. 0
    15 May 2024 14: 58
    Yes, it was not possible to call the “tagged” person to account. But they themselves are partly to blame for not appreciating the present and being simply naive and overly trusting. The “figures” of the 90s may have lied a lot about submariners. But we know and remember their real achievements and exploits. Their level of training and brilliant knowledge of oceanography, which allowed them to approach the shores of America undetected. There is a good collection of books “Sharks of Steel” by Eduard Ovechkin. Read it, you won't regret it.
  22. +4
    15 May 2024 16: 01
    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.

    Why look for SSBNs in the ocean if they are based at only two bases?
    In order to quietly remove the SSBN from the base, bring it to the position area, ensure the cleanliness of this area from all sorts of “virgins” and “elks” and guarantee the inevitability of the launch, a full-fledged balanced fleet is needed. Which is usually like that nuclear reactor - "not shown on the diagram".
    Otherwise, our SSBN will receive an SSBN on its tail right at the exit - and will pass through the database with it all the time. And at “hour H” it will be destroyed along with all SLBMs.
  23. -3
    15 May 2024 16: 55
    The usefulness of the fleet in its current state in the largest possible non-nuclear war has now been empirically tested (in Ukraine) - it is not only useless, but downright harmful (considering the funds that are spent on it).
    Despite all the differences in opinions among the participants of the Northern Military District, they completely agree on one thing - about the fleet, it’s either nothing or swearing.
    As for “nuclear Armageddon,” it is extremely unlikely.
    1) The Yeltsin-Putin authorities will under no circumstances start a global nuclear war. All they want is to finally leave them behind, give them guarantees of security, preservation of their power, the status of a junior partner, and allow them to calmly plunder the Soviet legacy and Russian natural resources.
    So the author’s scenarios when we are the first to launch a global nuclear strike simply do not make sense.
    2) For the West, the current regime in the Russian Federation is a goose that lays golden eggs which itself is ruining Russia. Yes, from their point of view, the political regime in Russia needs to be gently rotated; the Yeltsin-Putin authorities have fulfilled their historical mission. But a nuclear war against the current authorities of the Russian Federation is absurd.
    An even greater absurdity is the nuclear war of the PRC against the current Russian Federation.
    But it does not follow from this that nuclear weapons are useless for us; when the anti-people regime falls, then the threat of nuclear war and/or blackmail may arise.
    The West will not let us recover and develop just like that.
    As for the types of nuclear carriers, in the current state, the Strategic Missile Forces have absolute priority for Russia. They need to be developed as much as possible. The fleet will only be available as the state's capabilities are restored.
  24. 0
    15 May 2024 18: 57
    The Americans make cells for missile defense in mines, why don’t we do that?
    And you need to be puzzled by the BR with the correct conventional warheads
  25. +1
    15 May 2024 19: 11
    Skomorokhov again wrote nonsense.
    All launches of ICBMs and SLBMs are notified to all countries of the world, especially nuclear powers, at least 2 weeks in advance.
    And flight missions as well, salvo point and landing point.
    Therefore, no one in the Norad center in Canada was surprised and did not write about the fireworks.
    Skomorokhov is fantasizing again.

    Also.
    Why take 33 tons of water into the mine before launch?
    Plus for the rocket?
    Skomorokhov, are you serious?
    There, the volume of the shaft, after the rocket exits, does not exceed a total of 37-38 cubic meters.
    And before launching, you already pumped 533 tons of water into the boat.

    And so on throughout the article.
  26. 0
    15 May 2024 21: 38
    Quote: SovAr238A
    80% of the population in 20 cities entirely built up with high-rise buildings

    And yes, this too. Everyone has long known that the majority of the US population are rednecks. What cities ? Urbanization? What are you speaking about.
  27. -1
    16 May 2024 02: 04
    It’s surprising that the mace missile has only just been adopted. 20 years have passed since its first launch!!! That is, it was so bad that it took 20 years to bring it to an acceptable level!!!! Just think about these numbers!!! The Bulava missile is an unprecedented blow to the defense capability of the Russian submarine fleet!!!
  28. 0
    16 May 2024 16: 43
    Quote: SovAr238A
    So why listen to Bayards, uneducated talkers?

    Quote: SovAr238A
    So why listen to the Bayards, uneducated talkers?

    Why won't radioactive contamination affect the USA? Or is this not a secondary damaging factor?