What is our current situation with “nuclear counterforce potential”?

Part 4

Part three: Will Trump be able to combine offensive and defensive capabilities in one treaty?

Of the medium-range assets, there are 30 Tu-22M3 bombers (40 years ago there were 330 units) + two squadrons of MiG-31K fighters armed with Kinzhal air-launched missiles, and that’s all, there are no other medium-range assets.

Operational-tactical assets (up to 1000 km) – one brigade – 152nd Guards rocket The Brest-Warsaw Order of Lenin, Red Banner, and Order of Kutuzov Brigade is stationed near the city of Chernyakhovsk in the Kaliningrad Region. Since February 5, 2018, the brigade has been armed with the Iskander (SS-26 Stone) operational-tactical missile system, including 12 9P78-1 SPUs with 24 missiles. Another brigade in the European part of Russia, the 26th Missile Brigade, is stationed near the city of Luga in the Leningrad Region, with another 12 9P78-1 SPUs with 24 missiles. The 465th Missile Brigade is stationed in Belarus at the Osipovichi base, with another 12 9P78-1 SPUs with 24 missiles. The 465th Missile Brigade of the Ground Forces of the Republic of Belarus received the modern Russian 9K720 Iskander system instead of the OTR-21 Tochka-U systems in 2023.

All brigades are armed with 9M723 Iskander ballistic missiles, which can be equipped with four types of nuclear warheads: 9N39 with an AA-60 variable yield 10-100 kt, 9N64 with an AA-86 variable yield 5-50 kt, and 9N64 with an AA-92 variable yield 100-200 kt. With a lightweight 9N64 nuclear warhead with an AA-75 nuclear warhead (weight 372 kg, yield 1-10 kt), the 9M723K1 missile can reach a maximum range of over 600 km (627 km during tests). The brigades are also armed with Iskander-K 9M728 (SS-C-7 Southpaw) and 9M729 (SS-C-8 Screwdriver) cruise missiles, which can also be equipped with TK-66-02 nuclear warheads with a yield of 200 kt and TK-66-05 nuclear warheads with a yield of 250 kt.

History of the INF Treaty

During the Soviet-American summit in Vienna (June 15-18, 1979), the Soviet side expressed the view that the signed SALT II Treaty paved the way for progress toward SALT III. However, achieving SALT III was apparently an impossible task, as it would have required consideration of a number of significant strategic, geographic, and other factors that remain, so to speak, outside the scope of the negotiations. This applied primarily to American, French, and British forward-deployed medium-range and tactical-range weapons.

On the eve of the December 1979 NATO Council session, the West deliberately inflated its data on Soviet medium-range missiles. The West German Ministry of Defense's 1979 White Paper claimed that the Soviet Union possessed 600 medium-range missiles as of 1979, including 500 SS-4s and 100 SS-20s. The London-based Institute for Strategic Studies, in its publication "The Military Balance 1979-1980," went even further: the Soviet Union, the brochure noted, possessed 500 SS-4s, 90 SS-5s, and 120 SS-20s. Both publications, however, indicated that the rate of SS-20 missile buildup in subsequent years would be approximately 50 missiles per year.

On December 12, 1979, the NATO commander made a decision to "rearm," deploying 572 new nuclear missiles in Western Europe. This decision was also known as the "NATO dual-use solution." The US Army planned to replace the Pershing 1A with the 56th. artillery brigade deployed in West Germany with the Pershing II in 1983, while the German Air Force would retain its Pershing 1a.

A total of 108 Pershing II missile launchers and 464 BGM-109G Gryphon ground-launched cruise missile launchers were planned. Of the cruise missiles, 160 were to be deployed in England, 96 in West Germany, 112 in Italy (Sicily), 48 in the Netherlands, and 48 in Belgium. All 108 Pershing II missiles were to be deployed in West Germany, replacing the outdated Pershing 1a missiles.

The German Air Force also planned to replace its 72 Pershing 1a missiles with the new short-range Pershing 1b, but the Americans refused without explanation. After the NATO Council's decision on "rearmament," the propaganda need to so blatantly inflate the number of Soviet medium-range missiles became less pressing. The US Secretary of Defense's annual budget for fiscal year 1981 noted that the total number of Soviet SS-20 missiles was not 150–170, as suggested by the data published in Bonn and London, but only 60—half or even a third of the figures reported in the West on the eve of the December 1979 NATO session.

Nuclear in Europe weapon There were no regulations anywhere, ever. They deployed as much as they wanted, either their own, like the British and French, or American, like the West Germans, Italians, Turks, Belgians, and Dutch. Here's what Tom Gervasi, a prominent military expert at the time, wrote 40 years ago in his article "Let's Count All the Guns" in The New York Times on December 7, 1981:

President Reagan didn't bother to compare all the medium-range nuclear delivery systems possessed by NATO countries with those of the Warsaw Pact. As far as can be seen, he included in his comparison 48 of our Poseidon S-3 missiles (it's unclear on what basis, as they are part of the strategic balance between the USSR and the USA) and 550 fighter-bombers that could be used to deliver a nuclear strike.

But if he added to this 64 British Polaris A-3 missiles, 18 land-based S-3 missiles and 80 M-20 missiles launched from French submarines, as well as 637 NATO aircraft and 75 French Mirage-4, it would turn out that the West has a total of 1470 nuclear delivery vehicles.

If he hadn't exaggerated the number of Soviet carriers, it would have turned out that the Warsaw Pact countries possessed a total of 1650 such carriers. A comparison of the warhead counts on all these carriers shows that NATO and France possess approximately 3150 warheads, while the Warsaw Pact countries possess 2240.

At that time, President Reagan refrained from comparing shorter (tactical and operational-tactical) nuclear weapons. And if we recall the 108 Pershing-1A missiles we have? Or the 72 Pershing-1A missiles and 91 Honest John missiles in service with the West German army?

What about the 32 French Pluton missiles? What about the 78 Lance missiles and 515 M-109 and M-110 self-propelled howitzers? Where do we place the other 1,192 such howitzers and 550 Lance launchers in other NATO armies? They are armed with an additional 6,000 warheads. They provide NATO and France with 4,070 delivery vehicles, compared to the Warsaw Pact's 3,445 delivery vehicles, and approximately 9,165 tactical nuclear warheads, compared to the Warsaw Pact's 4,330 warheads...

Does the Soviet SS-20 missile pose any new threat? No! All the European cities mentioned by the president have been within range of Soviet SS-4 and SS-5 missiles since 1959.

In September 1983, Marshal Agarkov held a press conference in the USSR, broadcast on national television channels. For the first time in the USSR, tables, graphs, and figures previously considered secret were publicly displayed.

Thus, as of September 1, 1983, the Soviet Union possessed 938 medium-range nuclear weapons carriers—473 missiles and 465 aircraft (the Ministry of Defense likely counted all the Tu-22M, Tu-22, and Tu-16 ADD missile-carrying bombers currently in service with heavy bomber regiments based in the European USSR). Of these 473 missiles, 243 were the then-new RSD-10 Pioneer (SS-20), which was the source of the West's greatest concern. The balance between NATO and the USSR in medium-range nuclear weapons (from 1000 to 5500 km) existed throughout the Cold War.

Soviet-American talks on limiting nuclear arms in Europe began less than a year later, in October 1980, in Geneva, and were immediately suspended by the United States. At the outset of the talks, the Soviet Union proposed a mutual moratorium on the further deployment of new intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe and the replacement of existing ones. It was also intended that the parties cease all preparations for the deployment of additional nuclear weapons. This proposal was not supported by the West.

Nevertheless, in order to create a favorable political environment for the negotiations, which resumed in November 1981, the Soviet leadership decided in March 1982 to cease further deployment of intermediate-range nuclear weapons in the European part of the USSR. The replacement of old SS-4 and SS-5 missiles with the new SS-20 was suspended. On May 17, 1982, the USSR announced the beginning of a significant reduction in the number of its intermediate-range missiles and the end of construction of launch sites for such missiles in the European part of the USSR. The Soviet Union declared that no additional intermediate-range missiles would be deployed where they would be within range of Western European countries.

In the summer of 1982, the so-called "Nitze Initiative," or, as the media dubbed it, the "walk in the woods" option, gained widespread traction in the West. According to Western media reports, Paul Nitze, the head of the US delegation at the Geneva talks, proposed a formula during informal discussions that would allow for the partial deployment of new American missiles in exchange for a significant reduction in Soviet SS-20 missiles. According to media reports, this formula allowed the US to deploy 300 cruise missiles in Europe but not Pershing II IRBMs. The Soviet Union, meanwhile, would be obligated to reduce the number of SS-20 missile launchers, each carrying three warheads, to 75.

The difference in warhead numbers, favorable to the United States, was supposed to compensate for the advantage of Soviet ballistic missiles, which had significantly higher flight speeds than cruise missiles. In December 1982, the Soviet Union, taking into account the wishes of the Western side, put forward a compromise proposal: within the overall level of 300 missiles, a sublevel for missiles was expressed, and an agreement was concluded on the following terms: the USSR was prepared to retain in the European part of the country only the number of missiles possessed by Britain and France at that time—162 missiles—and to reduce to equal levels—to 138 missiles—the total number of all aircraft carrying intermediate-range nuclear weapons in the European region or assigned to the region, both in the USSR and NATO countries.

In addition to previously proposed reductions in nuclear weapons in Europe to equal levels for both sides, including carriers, missiles, and aircraft, as well as warheads, the Soviet Union declared in October 1983 its willingness to maintain only 140 SS-20 missile launchers in Europe, in order to ensure parity in warheads on the USSR's missiles, on the one hand, and those of Britain and France, on the other. Despite the Soviet Union's radical proposals, the American side continued to insist on its arguments.

On March 30, 1983, Ronald Reagan presented further proposals, dubbed the "interim option," which included a number of so-called "new" criteria. The criteria outlined by Reagan included a proposal for "equality of rights and limits," a refusal to compensate the Soviet Union for French nuclear forces, an agreement limiting Soviet intermediate-range missiles not only in the European zone but also in the Asian part of the USSR, and verification and control of the agreements.

Specifically, the US administration stated that it could offer the USSR a temporary, equal "global" warhead ceiling. This would amount to 300 American Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe versus 100 Soviet SS-20 missiles in the European part of the USSR, as well as in the Far East. If NATO fully deployed 572 new American missiles, the USSR would retain no more than 200 SS-20 missiles. The futility of solving the problem based on such a proposal was obvious even to the president's closest associates. For example, National Security Advisor D. Maifarlane noted with considerable skepticism that "the main point of the current proposal is simply that... the 'zero option' is not the only solution."

The "interim" option, like the "zero" option, was rejected by the Soviet Union. This option, again, envisioned a reduction in existing Soviet missile systems not only in Europe but also in the Asian part of the USSR, while simultaneously deploying new US medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe. It still didn't take into account British and French nuclear weapons, nor the many hundreds of American nuclear-capable aircraft based in Western Europe and on aircraft carriers. But then came March 10, 1985, and everything changed... Changed dramatically, for the worse.

What to do?

Conduct all necessary measures to deploy a counterforce potential in the European part of Russia consisting of medium-range missile forces, similar to what we had 40 years ago, in order to relieve the burden on strategic intercontinental forces – ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers.

1. Good news — the RS-26 Rubezh/Oreshnik ballistic missile system with a limited intercontinental range has been adopted into service, with the 15Zh67 (SS-X-31) missile entering serial production. It is necessary to deploy at least 10 to an optimal 20 missile regiments armed with these systems (90–180 launchers) in the European part of Russia.

2. Another piece of good news: a new modification of the Iskander, the Iskander-1000, has been accepted into service and is already being produced and delivered to the troops. It has a launch range of 1,000 km. Three brigades will be equipped with it: the 152nd Kaliningrad, the 465th Belarusian, and the 26th Missile Brigade.

3. Arm the Tu-22M3 KR X-101/102 bombers.

Comments

[spektr9]

Conduct all necessary measures to deploy a counterforce potential in the European part of Russia consisting of medium-range missile forces, similar to what we had 40 years ago, in order to relieve the burden on strategic intercontinental forces – ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers.

What's the point if there is no political will to use them? How many precedents have there already been that even according to the Russian Federation's nuclear doctrine we "reserve the right to a retaliatory strike"?
But then a thousand propagandists will jump out and howl in unison: we can't even attack Ukraine, otherwise we'll be destroyed... So it turns out that Russia can't, but the West can. And in this scenario, any nuclear weapon is no longer a shield for the motherland, but a couple of blanks in a warehouse.

[Igor K_2]

That's where the problem lies. The use of tactical nuclear weapons will bring us success on the front lines, but our political standing in the world could suffer greatly.

[spektr9]

That's where the problem lies. The use of tactical nuclear weapons will bring us success on the front lines, but our political standing in the world could suffer greatly.

Well, here we can cite the example of Israel. The UN recently acknowledged that they are committing genocide in Gaza, and do you think that any significant political positions of Israel in the world have suffered?
If we're talking, of course, about specific individuals who do business with the West, then yes, their businesses and assets could suffer. Here, the Russian Federation needs to choose whose interests are more important to it: the majority of citizens or the minority who have their own economic interests in the West... Well, this choice has apparently already been made.

[Igor K_2]

Don't compare Israel and us; the United States is under Israel's thumb. And whose international "community" is it? That's clear from the UN. What's left is relatively neutral toward us, and only crumbs are with us.

[spektr9]

Don't compare Israel and us; the United States is under Israel's thumb. And whose international "community" is it? That's clear from the UN. What's left is relatively neutral toward us, and only crumbs are with us.

Well, the standard position is that they can do it, but we can't... It seems like the Russian Federation isn't someone's colony yet, so it shouldn't be able to do anything, but some people don't seem to understand that.
And to have the whole world applaud you, there's nothing easier than surrendering all your interests and submitting to colonial rule. Then you'll have it your way, and most countries will treat you well. But I'm afraid domestic citizens won't appreciate it.

[Igor K_2]

Well, essentially, we're a colony, because part of the elite is subject to significant influence from abroad. And to take unconventional positions and decisions, you need an independent elite with balls of steel.

[bayard]

Quote: spektr9

It seems that the Russian Federation is not yet someone's colony.

You are mistaken. Only the metropolis of this colony is not in the USA, but in London.
Look who really owns the assets of our "oligarchs from the 90s." If you don't know, watch Mikhail Khodorkovsky's interview with Dud shortly after Jacob Rothschild's death. He himself was the responsible "owner" (in reality, manager) of some of Jacob's assets in Russia. Not a single oligarch in Chubais's nest is anything else.

Quote: spektr9

come under colonial control

Who do you think is pushing our vertical agenda to import Wahhabi migrants AND THEIR FAMILIES? Who has been whipping up this "pandemic" hysteria through their proxies in the vertical? Where are our domestic metals (on the London Stock Exchange) and other basic commodities and low-value/basic value-added goods valued? Where is the Central Bank's key rate determined in Russia? Incidentally, it's determined there for the US as well – not everyone pays taxes. Who determines tax policy in Russia? Who pushed through the so-called "tax maneuver" that has driven gasoline and other motor fuel prices inside Russia sky-high, while oil producers and refinery owners find it easier and more profitable to sell them for export. It's precisely because of this maneuver and the manipulation of taxes and pricing policy that gasoline has disappeared from our gas stations. Not because of Sumerian drone attacks (though they have played a role, but they're just a pretext), but because it's critically impossible to sell gasoline domestically—it's below the refinery's profitability level. That is, it's AT A LOSS. Diesel fuel, however, is still profitable, and there's plenty of it. Exporting gasoline, however, isn't just profitable—it's incredibly profitable. Because the "Tax Maneuver" guarantees most-favored-nation treatment for exporters and a restrictive, suppressive regime for domestic sales.
As is the Central Bank of the Russian Federation's discount rate from the IMF, whose shareholders are based in the City of London.
This is what "sovereignty" is like.
And no one is encroaching on the rights of the metropolis yet.
Besides Trump.
Although we do resist a little... But within the limits of what is permitted.

[Dedok]

If you don’t know, watch the interview Mikhail Khodorkovsky gave to Dud shortly after the death of Jacob Rothschild.

formally, this interview showed the reasons for conducting the SVO

[bayard]

It revealed a lot if you watch and listen carefully, and also understand when and why this interview was given. And of course, the "body language."

[Illanatol]

Fairy tales. Khodorkovsky is a nobody in today's Russia, he can only talk nonsense.
If Russia were truly under the control of London's businessmen, there simply wouldn't be any SVO. So, are the English lords orchestrating a serious conflict with their Russian henchmen? Why? What's the point of this conflict, what's the benefit? It would be far more profitable for English businessmen to cultivate our domestic market rather than impose sanctions, which boomerang on Western businesses.
The Central Bank's key interest rate is determined by the Central Bank. Yes, it's high, but even if it were lowered, the money would flow into the financial casino, into securities speculation, and not into the real sector. Under the current economic model (which the Central Bank didn't create), it wouldn't be any different.
What difference does it make where our metals and energy resources are priced? Even in Hokkaido, the prices will still be similar.
And you're contradicting yourself. Either our gasoline prices are exorbitant, or it's unprofitable to sell gasoline on the domestic market. Why wouldn't it be profitable if the price is high? Like, if we lower the price, selling it would be more profitable?
The price is high because the bulk of the profit from trading such goods goes to the federal budget. It needs to be filled to finance... what? Well, and defense spending too. Unfortunately, the production of household appliances and domestic cars, for example, barely fills our budget. And without taxes, it's impossible, so there's no need to look for conspiracies or indulge in conspiracy theories about the "evil Rothschilds." We ourselves once rejected the Soviet system, and now we're reaping the fruits of our own choice. The Rothschilds aren't to blame for everything; we ourselves are to blame for trading away our socialist birthright for the lentil soup of our Western partners.

[bayard]

Quote: Illanatol

Fairy tales. Khodorkovsky is a nobody in today's Russia, he can only talk nonsense.

Well, it depends on how you look at it. His former head of security is now practically the Kremlin's chief ideologist and political strategist, serving as an advisor to the Guarantor. I don't think he's influenced by Khodorkovsky, but it's a fact. His colleagues from the 90s oligarchs' union, who essentially manage the assets of Rothschild and Co. in Russia, are also involved. And I'm not talking about "who this character is now," but about what he said in the interview. Did you watch or listen to it? And it's very interesting.

Quote: Illanatol

So, are the English lords in a serious mess with their Russian henchmen? Why? What's the point of this conflict, what's the benefit?

And the benefit is that for almost 4 years now, Russians have been killing Russians. And destroying the infrastructure and economies of their countries. This is not about money. This is about Big... even Enormous Money. Their global financial system and everything built on it is collapsing. And poultices won't save it. But it is possible to postpone it for 15 or even 20 years if they capture all of Russia and thus postpone their own end. As they already managed before, when the collapse of the USSR, the World Socialist System, CMEA and the Warsaw Pact saved them from the inevitable Global Crisis and allowed them to exist until now. That robbery of Russia, the post-Soviet space and the former Socialist countries, and then saved the collective West from a Crisis worse than the Great Depression. The traitors and degenerates of the CPSU Central Committee didn't even suspect that if they had simply preserved the state for another 10 years, the entire West would have been at their feet in crisis and convulsions. But they had no brains, no will, no conscience.

Quote: Illanatol

The Central Bank's key rate is determined by the Central Bank.

Where did you get such naive stupidity?
The Central Bank of the Russian Federation is a branch of the IMF. Nabiullina is also one of the IMF's deputy heads. Her Central Bank is merely a branch/representative office of the IMF in Russia, and she is the IMF's overseer of the Russian Federation on their behalf. She is a representative of a supranational body of monetary authorities in this world. She is stupid and poorly educated, but that's what's needed—she's simply an automaton, a mouthpiece for the IMF's mandatory directives. Everything else is a game for the plebs.
And yes, the SVO is, to some extent, a kind of rebellion of the colony against the financial metropolis. It's no wonder that Putin, having launched the Strategic Military Plan on February 24, 2022, announced the decision the very next morning to freeze (in response to the seizure of our assets) all financial assets of Western financial institutions, the volume of which was estimated at "around $700-750 billion"). He also abolished the "Budget Rule" established for the Russian Federation, according to which everything above $41 per barrel was taken from the price of sold oil, and also announced the decision to monetize the Russian economy to 70% of GDP (with the norm being 100%, but the Russian Federation was allowed to have only 40%). This was a genuine rebellion, and that is precisely why all the liberals then rushed out of Russia, knocking down barriers. But the Strategic Military Plan failed, we ended up in a war of attrition, and maneuvers are again underway with a gradual buildup of forces.
But.
The entire vertical power structure was built by the Rothschilds and Co. from the late 80s (when preparations were underway) and throughout the subsequent period. I myself worked for a time in the early 90s and was in the personnel reserve of the Rothschilds' controlling structure in the USSR/Russian Federation.

Quote: Illanatol

Yes, it is high, but even if it is reduced, the money will go to the financial casino, to speculation in securities, and not to the real sector.

Who told you these tales? Who have you been listening to? What kind of casino is this during a war, when our enterprises and businesses need WORKING CAPITAL to run their production properly—at a normal, affordable, and low interest rate? And the interest rate has been jacked up specifically to collapse our economy, so that there's simply no money left to fight the war. The economy isn't just stagnating, it's "softly collapsing," which in Sakhipzadovna's parlance is called a "soft landing" and "cooling down an overheated economy." Where this "overheating" comes from during an economic downturn—that's up to her—the IMF's little machine gun. And Putin is acquiescing to her in order to defuse popular anger and the social unrest that such actions are fueling. Because while the war is ongoing and a turning point hasn't occurred, instigating a "St. Bartholomew's Day massacre" against the entire fifth and sixth columns is extremely risky. The country might not survive it, or the costs would be too high. They must collapse on their own, and very soon. Now, any drastic action on their part could be seen as their death throes. Trump is also waiting—he has put the brakes on the "nationalization of the Federal Reserve" so they don't do anything worse before they die.
Right now, the nuclear arsenals of England, France, and Israel are in the hands of the money-makers. That's a lot. Therefore, if they even think about the unthinkable, they will all have to be destroyed... without delay, without pity or regret. To avoid something much worse.

Quote: Illanatol

And you're contradicting yourself. Either our gasoline prices are exorbitant, or it's unprofitable to sell gasoline on the domestic market.

Because of prohibitive duties on domestic gasoline sales. Diesel fuel still offers minimal profitability, so gasoline was the first to disappear. Moreover, prohibitive duties are imposed on refineries, specifically on domestic sales. There are no duties on exports. And there are even fewer or no duties on exported crude oil.

Quote: Illanatol

The price is high because the bulk of the profit from selling such goods goes to the federal budget, which needs to be filled to finance it.

If we reduce duties on gasoline sales domestically and, conversely, increase them on exports, everything would immediately be resolved. However, a lower price for motor fuel would lead to a reduction in the cost of many goods and services, increase the profit margin for our enterprises and businesses, and, consequently, improve tax returns. Taxes would increase, and across the entire economy. These are the basic principles of pricing and the impact of transportation costs on the price of goods, the success of businesses and trade, and increased profits—increased taxes.

Quote: Illanatol

The Rothschilds are not to blame for everything, we ourselves are to blame

And who taught "us" to betray and sell out our country, our Motherland? Did they really do it themselves? Or did their agents sing them out? From the pages of Ogonyok, from late Soviet cinema, from TV shows and the Vzglyad program, from Komsomolskaya Pravda, from the "Gulag Archipelagoes," from slander against Stalin, the Generalissimo of Victory... Maybe it wasn't them after all?
People, like children, are easy to deceive. Especially if they've been thoroughly fooled beforehand, stupefied by a simplified education system, the exclusion of logic from the school curriculum, sated by chronic shortages of consumer goods (artificial shortages), and instilled in the younger generations a "cult of Western worship" through the SNR—sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll. So there's no need to prove the murder victim was to blame. Especially if the killer is a serial killer, a maniac, and a pervert.

[Doccor18]

Quote: spektr9

Well, here we can cite the example of Israel. The UN recently acknowledged that they are committing genocide in Gaza. Do you think that any significant political positions of Israel in the world have suffered?

Israel's example is of little use to Russia. 1. The United States stands behind Israel. Not only politically, but also practically, even going so far as to conduct joint military operations.
2. Israeli diasporas are very influential in many countries around the world.
3. The Israeli economy "miraculously" survives and develops, despite initially almost disgusting conditions (lack of natural conditions/resources, small territory, small population, presence of hostile neighbors).
Which of these is typical for our country?

[Igor K_2]

I'll add point two: she has quite significant influence here, too. Our head of government is among the top 50 most influential Jews in the world, and that's worth remembering.

[alekc73]

There will be no success. The limited use of tactical nuclear weapons will change nothing. The political damage will be enormous. China will turn its back on us.

[Igor K_2]

No, there will be some gains. For example, in terms of supply restrictions from NATO; they'll understand the red lines, and that no one's joking.

[evgenii67]

Well, good evening. Two or three special-purpose battalions with a capacity of 10-15 kt, and there's no fortification like Bakhmut, one BB, and no plant like Motorsich. They're still throwing in the towel on this Motorsich, and they'll keep throwing it away for a long time. But they just blew it once and forgot about this plant. But that's all just lip service; for that, we need steel bells, and before that, the elimination of the top brass. They could all be killed en masse right there in the Rada during the meeting and Zelensky's speech.

[dmi.pris1]

How can we achieve success at the front with the use of tactical nuclear weapons? We would immediately lose technological and industrial support from countries we critically depend on—China, first and foremost. You likely don't understand the characteristics of these weapons. There are no enemy troop concentrations at the front that could be attacked. Strikes, just for the sake of striking, just for the sake of it? Without causing serious damage? But inflicting damage on ourselves while under complete blockade from China, India, Turkey, etc.

[Igor K_2]

This isn't about shooting sparrows with a cannon, but about attacks on important strategic targets, bridges, tunnels, etc. And supporting countries is the political side of the issue, which is what I wrote about.

[alexoff]

So our position is already suffering even without tactical nuclear weapons. The US will force anyone to do anything, but they are balancing so that no one in the Kremlin decides that if the barn burns down, the house burns too.

[Andrey62]

The use of tactical nuclear weapons will bring us success at the front, but our political position in the world could suffer very seriously.

If you think about it that way, then why have (or even maintain, which is a huge financial expense) tactical nuclear weapons? Just to have the satisfaction of knowing they exist? And what deterrent effect would that have? Remember a fight: sometimes a shot into the air stops everything…

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: Andrey62

If we reason like this, then why have (make and store, which is a big financial expense) tactical nuclear weapons at all?

To use it—if necessary—not for... to put it mildly... completely inappropriate targets (from Ukraine to the idea of ​​smashing Siberia to make people afraid of us). But to REALLY have the ability to counter Europe without affecting our strategic potential.
If you looked at the NUMBERS in the article, our actual mid-range forces right now aren't much different from those of the Anglo-French. And if you think they're in worse disarray than we are, I envy the optimist.

[Andrey62]

To use it - if necessary - for... to put it mildly... completely inappropriate targets (from Ukraine to the idea of ​​hitting Siberia so that they would be afraid of us)

The targets have been there for a long time. If you look closely, you'll see that the Donetsk region still hasn't been liberated, and Donetsk is constantly under fire. And they can't liberate it because of the fortifications built after 2014. Much has been written and justified about this. Of course, the experts know better, but as our president once again said: "...we have the most modern and sophisticated nuclear weapons." And how the Americans boast that they have the most advanced bombs... and one description says that after use, there's virtually no radioactive contamination. So why not? But this will really have a significant "political" impact. Perhaps the enemies will start to think, but the fact that Russia is being vilified is a fact and won't change. But the fortifications that kill citizens and our troops every day will be destroyed...

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: Andrey62

and one description said that after use there was virtually no radioactive contamination left.

Take it from someone who knows a little bit - the smaller the bomb, the greater the contamination.
Clean bombs - fuel-burning - powerful... From very difficult and expensive to impossible to make a small clean bomb...
As for the beginning of its use for tactical purposes, it will be a different world... There was already one like it half a century ago, with much smaller economic possibilities.

Just think - a spiral and whoever is the first to zabz..., sorry, will be less decisive:
- we're hitting with a 10kt charge
- France (or England?) sells such shells/bombs/missiles to Ukraine
- In response, we strike at the "decision-making centers" (not in Gulyai-Pole)
- And off we go!

So who'll be the first to stop? And if everyone's so brave, why the hell was that first strike with 10kt tactical ammunition???? And not a full strike?

[Andrey_i_K]

but there should be an attitude - don't give a damn about anyone's opinion, especially your enemies'!

[65-73]

Thank you!
Interesting article! We need more like this!
I haven't seen any data on the warhead and automatic fire control system for Iskanders anywhere else.

[Monster_Fat]

"Deploy!" "Arm!"... "Cook the pot!" - just say it and shelves of "Rubezh/Orezhnikovs", "Iskanders", etc. will immediately start pouring out of the "Magic Pot" - just keep trying to place them. Yeah.

[bayard]

Quote: Monster_Fat

"Pot, cook!" – just say it, and shelves of Rubezh/Orezhnikov, Iskander, and other missiles will immediately emerge from your "Magic Pot."

So everything is already cooked and unfolding.
The Russian Federation currently has 12 Iskander-equipped missile brigades in the Ground Forces. However, these brigades are limited to four battalions. Therefore, without creating new entities (regiments and formations), these brigades could simply be expanded to a more manageable battalion structure by adding two Iskander-M and two Iskander-K battalions, two more Iskander-1000 battalions (with a range of at least 1200 km with nuclear warheads) and two Iskander-KK battalions (with Kalibr cruise missiles with a range of at least 2500 km with nuclear warheads). And within the framework of the existing operational-tactical formations (brigades), we would have everything we desire and need. The order to implement this was received over two years ago and is being implemented.
As is the deployment of regiments of heavy IRBMs "Rubezh-Oreshnik". "Rubezh" - 6 nuclear warheads with a maximum range of 5500 km+; "Oreshnik" - 36 nuclear warheads with a range of approximately 2000 km.
The minimum number of deployed Oreshniki and Rubezh missiles should correspond to the number of SLBMs of France and England - 128 units in the European strategic direction.
It's not as expensive as it might seem to the uninitiated. The price of a fully equipped IRBM with a TPU is less than or equal to the cost of a fourth-generation tactical fighter.

Quote: Monster_Fat

Just keep up with posting them. Yeah.

In fact, they're already being deployed. They're in serial production. For this purpose, new workshops in Votkinsk have been built and launched in record time in recent years. So, without any impact on ICBM and SLBM production.

Quote: Monster_Fat

"Pot - cook!"

The pot is cooking.

[dmi.pris1]

Where did you get 12 missile brigades? The article clearly states where and how many. At least provide a link to where this came from. If this is true, I'll be happy. I know about something else—there are plans to have them. But that doesn't mean they actually exist.

[bayard]

Quote from: dmi.pris1

Where did you get 12 missile brigades?

To know this, all you had to do was carefully follow the Ministry of Defense reports on the rearmament of missile brigades from Tochka-U missile systems to Iskander-M and Iskander-K systems. These were annual reports from the Ministry of Defense. Incidentally, there were also such reports on the rearmament of air defense systems from the old S-300s to the S-400s, with a list of missile regiments and the number of battalions within them. And these reports were also published on the pages of the Ministry of Defense.
The Russian Armed Forces had 10 missile brigades with Tochka-U missile systems. With the introduction of the Iskander OTRK, these brigades began to be rearmed. On average, industry issued one brigade's worth of equipment per year. The rearmament of all 10 brigades was completed around 2018 (I could be off by a year or so), and a year later, the decision was made to deploy two more such brigades. Their deployment was also reported in Ministry of Defense reports. Before the Central Military District, this was the norm. Such information was also openly available on the State Procurement website. This topic was discussed, including on Military District forums. You may not have participated in this, but I have a good memory and a professional approach to information.

Quote from: dmi.pris1

The article clearly indicates where and how much.

The article lists brigades deployed in the European strategic direction. The permitted range of Iskander missiles is 500 km, so only those brigades deployed directly on the NATO border are mentioned. If necessary, additional divisions or even brigades can be brought in for qualitative reinforcement, but for now, all missile brigades (except those deployed in the Central Military District) are deployed to their permanent bases.

Quote from: dmi.pris1

I know about something else - there are plans to have them.

Have WHAT?
The Russian Armed Forces already have 12 brigades, each composed of four battalions. These brigades could be expanded with additional battalions of Iskander-1000 and Kalibr cruise missiles (President Putin ordered the preparation and deployment of ground-based systems with Kalibr and Tsirkon cruise missiles three years ago, in view of the termination of the INF Treaty). While the Tsirkons will likely be deployed with the Bastion missile system, the Kalibr will definitely be deployed with Iskander-equipped missile brigades, or additional regiments and/or brigades will be deployed for them.

Quote from: dmi.pris1

But this does not mean that they actually exist.

Even in the Military District archive, information about missile brigades, their composition, numbers, and standard armament has been published repeatedly. I'd even say regularly. Right up until the Defense Ministry's decision to seal such information during the Second Military Operation. I'm a former combat command officer, and I have a professional perspective, observation skills, and ability to identify key points in a flood of information. So you can (if you'd like) comb through the Military District archives; such reports were usually published there at the end of the year.

Quote from: dmi.pris1

If this is true, I will be happy.

This is true, but I won't do the work for you. If you want to see for yourself, check out the VO Archive. Look at the reports for 2020 and 2021, because it looks like this won't be the case in 2022. It's simple, but it requires diligence and responsibility.

And the respected author, Sergei Ketonov, wrote about the necessary measures to balance the balance in our Western Strategic Direction. In this case, the only brigades that matter are those deployed in the Kaliningrad and Leningrad regions, Belarus, and perhaps the Kola Peninsula (though the point of the latter is questionable). NATO countries simply can't get Iskander missiles from anywhere else. Well, maybe from Crimea, but that's for Bulgaria and Romania.
Now it's clear why the author only named the missile brigades he named (just like Klitschko about coloring them). The others simply don't count in this case. And Sergey Ketonov definitely knows the number of OTRK missile brigades in the Russian Federation.

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: bayard

Now it’s clear why the author named only those missile brigades that he named (just like Klitschko about painting in colors)?

That's where you should start.
The purpose of Iskander missiles, with their long range, is highly questionable. And the first strike targets are 600 km from the front line... Even the example of drones now shows where the rear really begins. And it's also easy to see that, beyond drones, doctrinal changes will have a significant impact on the depth of the "rear."

[bayard]

Well, the information about the number of missile brigades is generally known, so neither the author nor I (in my first comment) separately described the problem with the range of the Iskanders.
But the issue is partly resolved by deploying the new (stretched) Iskander-1000, which carries a nuclear warhead and has a range of 1200 km. A two-stage Iskander with a range of 2000-2500 km is likely on the way. There are Kalibr missiles with a range of 2500 km+ for the second echelon. There is the Oreshnik, and there is the Rubezh. All that remains is to deploy them to the required numbers. And not only in the European theater of operations. The Far East and Chukotka are also waiting.

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: bayard

Iskander-1000

This is not really a solution to the problem.
Extended, two-stage... These are all the dimensions and a new starting...
"Tactical" means in the old sense are now naturally divided into "tactical" and "strategic"...
The average range of strategic weapons (up to 6000 somewhere) is hundreds of kilotons and megatons... Countering European nuclear forces.
It's unclear what a 10-kilogram "tactical" charge can solve now... Blowing up bridges...
And new launchers for our industry are a more difficult task than new missiles...

[bayard]

Quote from tsvetahaki

This is not really a solution to the problem.

This is a solution to the problem of defeating NATO targets in central Europe and in parts of Western Europe.

Quote from tsvetahaki

Average range of strategic (up to 6000 somewhere)

Up to 5500 km according to the generally accepted gradation and defined in the START and INF Treaty.

Quote from tsvetahaki

these are hundreds of kilotons and megatons...

Not necessarily, the charge yield is determined according to the combat mission and the nature of the target. The Pershing-2 had a nuclear warhead of "only" 20 kt, but it was intended to destroy point targets - command posts/centers, arsenals, strategic nuclear forces basing sites, strategic facilities. Why megatons with such accuracy and a CEP of 20-30 m (according to official US data)? It's the same with us. Why throw around megatons if 5-10-20 kt is enough to guarantee the destruction of a target? The Iskander can throw 600 kt if it wants, and even up to 1-2 mt if it really wants to (taking into account the parameters of the new physical packages from Rosatom), but why is this necessary when destroying missile defense facilities, arsenals, command centers, airfields, and basing sites? A 13-kilogram warhead was enough for Hiroshima, and the city was gone. The center of Nagasaki was missed due to cloud cover, but the Fat Man's yield was 18 kt, and the port and most of the city were wiped out. Our modern missiles have a CEP of several meters, so often even an ultra-low-yield warhead of 0,5-2 kt or less will be sufficient.

Quote from tsvetahaki

It's unclear what a 10-kilogram "tactical" charge can solve now... Blowing up bridges...

Destroy a city of up to 100,000 people, destroy a military airfield and its entire infrastructure, enemy deployment sites, missile defense deployment areas, administrative centers of enemy capitals, a naval base, or a port. Have you seen footage of an underwater torpedo warhead test destroying a group of ships near Novaya Zemlya? The warhead there was only 5 kilotons, but what an effect.
You have a hard time imagining what 10,000 tons of trinitrotoluene is. That's four standard trains of 2500 tons each, just to put it mildly, all gathered together.

Quote from tsvetahaki

Blow up the bridges...

The bridges across the Dnieper are not being touched for a different reason. For the same reason why the Ukrainian Armed Forces have not yet captured Transnistria, and NATO has not blockaded our Kaliningrad region. This is the result of agreements reached in the summer of 2022. If they had wanted to, these bridges would have long since lain at the bottom of the Dnieper, or would have been rendered completely unusable. The same goes for the dams across the Dnieper.

Quote from tsvetahaki

And new launchers for our industry are a more difficult task than new missiles...

And why would that be? If extended transport pods for the "long Iskander-K"/"Kalibr" missiles were created and accepted into service back in the second half of the last decade? If the ground-based transport pods of the Bastion missile system are perfectly suitable for the Tsirkon missiles, albeit with some modifications? And what has already been implemented? And the extended transport pod for the Iskander-1000 has already been created, tested in the SVO, and is in serial production. There will be no problem creating a transport pod for the two-stage Iskander, which will be roughly the size of the Pershing-2; it will simply have a longer base and more powerful drives and jacks. This isn't something they're building from scratch, as the US has recently decided. They can't seem to get a new ICBM off the ground; the deadlines keep getting pushed back, and the silos from the old Minuteman missiles aren't suitable. And if they were to invent a TPU, it would be practically from scratch—they've never done anything like that before. And their new ICBM is designed to be heavy, almost like the MX.
And what difficulties could we possibly have with creating new unpaved transport hubs, given that we have both the Bryansk plant and the Minsk plant, which not only provided transport hubs for our Yars, Topol, Oreshniki, and Rubezh trains, but also trained China and North Korea in this field? It's precisely here that all the competencies have been preserved and are being developed. In the DPRK and China, too. But in the US and Europe, everything is neglected. They're the ones with the problems.

[tsvetahaki]

I will answer anyway, at least to some extent.
Charge power - targets.
The Pershings' goal was neutralization with a first strike. A first strike is, in principle, impossible for us – we don't have the intelligence and counterintelligence we need.
Therefore - a counterattack with the REMAINING installations.
If you don't believe in a slowly-slowly deploying limited nuclear force.
And the response is no longer about targeting, because there will be nothing to guide with except inertial and stellar correction. Which is especially not ideal for mobile missiles.
And the goals of the retaliatory strike are not military, but the destruction of statehood.

About competencies.
Alas. The concentration of expertise in the nuclear field is better than in the States. But the production base in the missile field... And the overall competence is simply nonexistent.
Neither in aerodynamics nor in chemistry... The use of American CAD systems, where the machine thinks to the best of its ability, helps.
But these are long-term problems that will play a role in the arms race in 3-5 years.
But right now, launch capability is limited by the number of launchers—not missiles and warheads. They won't let you reload.

"In the DPRK, in the PRC" – are you aware of what's happening in China right now? And what's the analysis of the October CPC Congress?
And the hope for the industry of the DPRK and Iran... This hope alone speaks volumes about the state of the economy and what to expect...
Produce several thousand launchers... In a year or two... Like Stanislavsky - I don't believe it!

[bayard]

Quote from tsvetahaki

Charge power - targets.

We have any. From hundreds of Kt. to 100 Mt.

Quote from tsvetahaki

In principle, we cannot strike first.

It may be impossible for you. What does this have to do with us?
In fact, this is provided for in our Military Doctrine.

Quote from tsvetahaki

Therefore - a counterattack with the REMAINING installations.

And I don't envy the Europeans and the US under the counterattack. For them, it will simply be the end. And complete and without exception.

Quote from tsvetahaki

Which is especially not very good for mobile missiles.

The purpose of mobile missile systems is to survive the first strike and participate in the second. Each system has its own route and a certain number of launch sites with known and pre-programmed coordinates. So everything will be fine, accuracy-wise. We won't be hitting the Minuteman silos; they're already inoperative.

Quote from tsvetahaki

And the goals of the retaliatory strike are not military, but the destruction of statehood.

After our strike, these states will not remain.

Quote from tsvetahaki

About competencies.

Do you have them?

Quote from tsvetahaki

Alas.

Well, I see that you have - alas.

Quote from tsvetahaki

The concentration of competencies in the nuclear field is better than in the States.

Rosatom's expertise is beyond reasonable criticism. Our expertise is currently unattainable by the US for another 15-20 years, if they persist in trying to catch up and spend insane amounts of money.

Quote from tsvetahaki

But the production base in the missile industry... And the overall competence is simply non-existent.

And this... WHAT just happened?
How many new ICBMs, SLBMs, and SSBNs does the US produce per year? What about England? What about France? Maybe Germany? Which NATO country has produced even one ICBM in the last 10 years? What about the last 20 years? What about the last 30 years? Do you have any specialists left in this industry? How many years have you been messing with Sentinel, and the result is nothing and no prospects until 2035, or even 2040. Complete disqualification of the industry and degradation of production and scientific capabilities.
Or did you want to point Musk at me?
So Musk is talking about something else, and about private, civilian, non-combat matters.

Quote from tsvetahaki

Neither in aerodynamics nor in chemistry...

Have they at least resumed TNT production in the US? Did they find someone to use it for, and how? Is there enough? What about propellant powder?
The aerodynamics thing was also a joke. Who would bother? Maybe the Lightning is comparable to the Su-57 in terms of aerodynamics?
Or "Eagle" with Su-27?
Or Falcon with MiG-29?
Or B-1B with Tu-160??
Or did the Rafale shine in some way during the recent Indo-Pakistani conflict? Or the Eurofighter?
Perhaps you have some outstanding achievements in the ASP?
No, it's all business as usual, everything is familiar. And Russia is back to "further, higher, stronger."
Or maybe Europe or the US have surpassed us (Russia) in military production? In shells? In the number of MLRS missiles? In the quantity and QUALITY of missiles for tactical ballistic missile systems? Maybe Europe has surpassed us in the number of cruise missiles produced?
Or the USA?
Or all together?
Perhaps you accidentally launched hypersonic missiles?
Why not? Why don't they come out? Disqualification? Degeneration of engineering thought and the quality of training specialists?
What is the advantage that can be used to advantage?
In microelectronics?
And its production isn't here, either, but in China. Insular and continental. And the US CANNOT replicate production at home. It's not working. Maybe for now, and if they persist, in another 5-10 years, everything will be back to normal... But for military products, the "nanometers" you're so keen on are not needed. 200-300 nanometers are quite sufficient there. And what's the difference if you buy everything from Taiwan, and we buy from China, Taiwan, and Belarus? So even in this regard, you're somehow missing the boat.

Quote from tsvetahaki

Right now, launch capability is limited by the number of launchers—not missiles and warheads. They won't let you reload.

Hmm... Actually, we have Topol and Topol-M ICBMs and their launchers (!) in storage that were removed from operational use, so if we want, we can reload them and put them back into operational use if we urgently need to increase our inventory. Even old ones, but with their expiration dates still intact. And we produce new ones every year, too. In peacetime, there were about 40 ICBMs and SLBMs. Now, of course, there are more. New workshops in Votkinsk have been built and are up and running. Now, Oreshnik, Rubezh, and other interesting, and even currently unpublicized, things are being produced in two or three shifts.

Quote from tsvetahaki

They won't let you recharge.

Maybe they won't give it to you. Or maybe we won't give it to you. It's like the blonde on a walk - you might meet a dinosaur, or it might meet you. But the outcome will be the same for you.

Quote from tsvetahaki

Are you aware of what's happening in China right now? And what's the analysis of the October CPC Congress?

Do you know what is happening in France?
And in England?
And in the USA?
And in China, things are Chinese, written in hieroglyphs. The crisis concerns everyone. And China as the World Factory too.

Quote from tsvetahaki

And hope lies in the industry of the DPRK and Iran...

Hope of whom/what? And in what?
In weapons production, we've been helping them our whole lives. Even right now. We've trained Iranian missile designers, smart guys.
We have ensured food security for ourselves, we are the largest food exporters, despite our climate.
And in industry, the US, for example, has lost shipbuilding expertise. They are completely losing the naval race to China. England has completely forgotten how. France never really knew how. But all our war-related industries are alive, working, developing, progressing – as they should in a war.

Quote from tsvetahaki

Produce several thousand launchers... In a year or two...

Why so many? Oreshnik has 36 Yabbs of 150 Kt each... 10 of them, which in Belarus already means 360 Yabbs of 150 Kt each. Only Oreshnik and only in Belarus. And it's not only in Belarus and far from only Oreshnik.
Even before the war, our industry was churning out a brigade's worth of Iskanders per year. Now it's more. And Belarusian enterprises are fully booked with our orders. We have enough launchers. We need to upgrade our ICBMs to a full complement of nuclear warheads, and that would immediately double our potential – at a minimum. Stop decommissioning the Topoli-M missiles, return those currently in storage, plus the Yars and Bulava missiles produced annually, and that would double our potential. Peace of mind, no stress or cost overruns.
In working order.

Quote from tsvetahaki

Like Stanislavsky - I don't believe it!

You're no Stanislavsky. Absolutely not. No knowledge of the subject, no objective analysis. Pure and very superficial propaganda.

[tsvetahaki]

It may be impossible for you. What does this have to do with us?

You know, this is impudence.
But since I'm at the level of a 12-year-old, I won't continue arguing with a teenager.

[bayard]

Well, you have already shown your level, there is definitely no point in continuing.

Quote from tsvetahaki

continue with a teenager

Young man, I reached that age long before the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

[FoBoss_VM]

Unfortunately, effective managers have practically lost sight of the entire military-industrial complex, and not only that. Restoring production of aircraft like the Tu-22 or Mig-31 is currently impossible, neither under this regime nor under this president.

[bayard]

Quote from: FoBoss_VM

It is currently impossible to restore production of aircraft such as the Tu-22 or Mig-31.

Why and who needs it?
Production of heavy aircraft like the Su-30SM2, Su-34M, Su-35S/SM, and Su-57 has been established. They have superior armament and avionics compared to the aforementioned. There's no equivalent to the Tu-22M3, but is one needed when the Su-57 and Su-34M have roughly the same range and combat radius, and are capable of carrying both heavy Kh-101/102 cruise missiles, as well as the Kinzhal and the air-launched version of the Zircon? They're used because they exist, and they'll be used until their service life is completely exhausted.

This is in no way a defense of ineffective managers who have screwed up more than just everything they've touched. But clearly, there are managers and specialists of a different caliber. Otherwise, we wouldn't occasionally acquire such useful things in war as the Kinzhal, Iskander, Zircon, Yars, Poseidon (no matter how you criticize it, it's indispensable in a global war), and other things useful in a global (and other) war.

[Enotovich]

It would be fine if they had "slept through" it, but what was there they joyfully cut and destroyed to please their dear partners.

[Novosibirsk]

First, they left a lot of Tu-22s in Ukraine after 91. About 100 of them. And they destroyed them under American supervision in 2005. Is that good for us or not?

[pavelpavel]

Putin's support for the sabotage of the monetary and financial systems is strange. Where does this decisive expert opinion come from? From whom? More specifically, who, in such a position, is the traitor to Russia? I don't think there's just one! MI6 is celebrating this victory!

[agond]

Regarding long-range aviation as a weapons carrier, it's well known that it's armed with cruise missiles, not free-fall bombs, as was the case when the Tu-95 and Tu-22, for example, were introduced. However, any missile, including cruise missiles, is much easier and cheaper to launch from ground launchers. They don't require the hassle of aircraft, crews, and other personnel, airfields, airfield security, or the development, construction, and maintenance of aircraft. If a railway platform can accommodate more than one or two cruise missile launchers, then a train of a dozen such platforms or cars can replace an airfield with aircraft. Moreover, the missiles on the train (unlike aircraft) will be on 10-minute combat readiness 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, regardless of flying conditions. If you ask the question, is long-range aviation necessary in the age of cruise missiles if everything is so complicated with it, I think the answer will depend on who you ask it to. If you ask an aviation general, then naturally he will say it is absolutely necessary, there is no way without it.

[sas711]

Yes, exactly. They can only be disguised as regular railway cars or as regular trucks. This approach was restricted by the INF Treaty, which is no longer in effect. Light ICBMs or medium-range missiles can also be mounted on trucks. Such developments were underway in the USSR, codenamed "Courier." The missile weighed 15 tons.

What good are long-range aviation if it only operates from its own territory? Don't confuse them with the Americans; they have bases all over the world—airfields and tankers. We have none of that. Therefore, long-range aviation should either be abolished or reoriented toward countering AUGs. But even for that, it's outdated; we can spot its takeoffs in real time.

[snow mountain]

Any missiles, including cruise missiles, are much easier and cheaper to launch from ground-based launchers; they don't need to be tied down by aircraft.

The location of all ground launchers is known, but an aircraft can circle in the air for hours, here today, there tomorrow

[Andrey62]

…we need to dance with the planes, crews and other personnel, airfields…

On the one hand, yes, especially since it was already mentioned earlier in the thread that missile "units" along with the missiles and so on are even cheaper. On the other hand, if you look at it, Russia had and still has the best integrated air defense system and its weapons, and drones can penetrate and reach the Urals... Apparently, after the Second World War, this is precisely what will become the main question regarding tactics and strategy for development and preparation for future wars. Then again, those same aircraft, in small (relatively) numbers, were a great solution in Syria, which seemed to be "dying" in 2015. There are more questions than answers.

[bayard]

Well, during the fabled "Tatar-Mongol Yoke," Russian princes also maneuvered within the limits of their capabilities. They sent troops to the Horde and prepared their retinues. Who knows how long the main tower's patience with the tricks of the "monetary authorities" will last. Sometimes a Long Will is far more useful than a short, quick-reaction hysteria.
At least the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces have been rearmed and are in excellent shape; heavy (and light!) IRBMs have been developed, tested in the Central Military District, launched into serial production, and are being deployed. The Ground Army's strength has been brought up to the parameters necessary for war with NATO and is being tested in combat. And the antics of the "financial sector" (external control and management from the City of London) are on display, for public discussion and condemnation... We'll see how long they can continue to strut their stuff on the scaffold.

[Anthony]

Marshall Ogarkov was called Agarkov in the article

[sergeyketonov]

Anton. Good evening. Marshal Nikolai Vasilyevich Ogarkov was an outstanding figure – a Soviet officer with an IQ well above 200, most likely around 300. Back then, the social ladder of the Soviet system quickly propelled such people to the very top. I often mention Marshal Ogarkov in my forum posts. In the text of the article, Word Excel stubbornly corrects the letter O to an A. I got tired of fighting it and gave up, leaving it as is. I think those who knew the marshal will remember him fondly. How we miss such officers today...

[Hitriy Zhuk]

SS-26 Stone

Why this servility?
Why indicate what Pan American calls our equipment?

[bk0010]

Quote: Hitriy Zhuk

Why this servility?
Why indicate what Pan American calls our equipment?

Because domestic designations were classified as SS. For negotiations and for journalists, the missiles needed a name, so they adopted the American designations for civilian use. Back in the USSR.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote: bk0010

For negotiations and for journalists, the missiles needed to be named somehow, so they adopted the American designations for civilian use.

We will soon be 40 years out of the USSR.
Even then it was degeneracy.

[abc_alex]

Quote: bk0010

Because domestic designations were classified as SS. For negotiations and for journalists, the missiles needed a name, so they adopted the American designations for civilian use. Back in the USSR.

What makes you think that? The Iskander's quasi-ballistics are 9M723. GRAU never had "SS" as an index; it's a NATO designation. SS stands for "surface-surface," meaning "ground-to-ground."
And the Soviet designations of missile systems are 9K for 9M (RVSN) and 8K missiles.
9K7 is the index of the Soviet self-propelled ground-based OTRK.
9K71 - self-propelled tactical missile system "Temp"
9K72 - Elbrus self-propelled tactical missile system
9K72-1 - self-propelled operational-tactical missile system "Aerofon"
9K73 - helicopter-transportable operational-tactical missile system
9K74 - helicopter-transportable missile system FKR-2V
9K76 - self-propelled operational-tactical missile system "Temp-S"
9K79 - self-propelled tactical missile system "Tochka"
9K79-1 - Tochka-U tactical missile system
9K711 - self-propelled operational-tactical missile system "Uran"
9K714 - self-propelled operational-tactical missile system "Oka"
9K720 - self-propelled operational-tactical missile system "Tender" ("Iskander")

[bk0010]

Quote: abc_alex

Why do you think so?

People who participated in the development of these agreements wrote.

Quote: abc_alex

GRAU indexes never included "SS"

The SS in my answer is not an index, but a classification - "top secret"

[ayk]

This is classified as top secret by the SS.

[KrolikZanuda]

So, in short - practically nothing?

[victor_47]

Having a powerful nuclear potential is not enough to ensure national security. A highly effective air and missile defense system is necessary. Microwave-based systems (destruction) appear to be the most promising in this area. Such systems are already being developed in the United States and China. Their development will enable the destruction of not only drones but also all types of other attack targets, from aircraft to ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and nuclear warheads. Naturally, such systems must be complemented by automated laser, missile-artillery, electronic warfare, and short-range electronic warfare systems.

[alovrov]

When you think back to all the hype of the 80s about de-escalation and disarmament, in retrospect the question arises: why? What was the point of playing all these games instead of getting their strategic nuclear forces in order? So that the Anglo-Saxons could live more peacefully?
So, the next question is: why the hell did our leadership just fart in a puddle about the New START Treaty? For old times' sake? Nobody even heard about it. History teaches nothing, damn it...

[Mike777]

Putin doesn't want Europe to be destroyed but the western elites doesn't care because the believe in the new heaven in US, look at them after politics the all run and leave in US, just like Ukrainian's president, after the war he will run to US.

[sas711]

Why should we arm the Tu-22 with x101 missiles? It's a subsonic missile, easily shot down by air defense. Instead, we should arm them with daggers or something similar.

[bayard]

The 30 remaining Tu-22M3s are armed with the supersonic Kh-22 and near-hypersonic Kh-32, which have a speed of almost Mach 5 and a range of 1000 km. It's unlikely they'll be equipped with any new missiles—their service life is only about 10 years, compared to the best.
At the same time, the Su-34M can also carry the Kinzhal, or the air-launched version of the Zircon. That will be sufficient.
If necessary, the Kh-101/102 can also carry Su-34Ms to achieve operational surprise (our strategists' preparations for the flight are monitored by satellites). The limited number of strategic carriers for these missiles also compensates for this. The Su-34M can also be used for the European theater of operations.

Quote: sas711

it gets knocked down easily

Well, that's when there's something to shoot down (aircraft, ground-based air defenses). But if they arrive in a second wave after a massive missile strike with hypersonic and ballistic/aeroballistic missiles, with airfields swept away in a fiery whirlwind and air defenses suppressed and blinded, stealthy cruise missiles are a very effective tool for destroying infrastructure during WWI. Especially in special versions. By the way, their nuclear warheads can have a yield of up to 500-600 kilotons, and even up to 2 megatons (if desired). New nuclear warhead physical packages from Rosatom allow this. Cruise missiles always arrive in a second wave in a TMI scenario.

[abc_alex]

Quote: bayard

It's unlikely that they'll be equipped with any new missiles - the best ones have at most 10 years of service life left.

And don't forget to add that they have a colossal problem with engines. The NK-25 is no longer in production, the re-engining to the NK-32 never took place, and given the state of the Tupolev Design Bureau, it never will.

[bayard]

Well, there were attempts to cram the unsqueezable, they tried. Only inspection of the remnants of the former glory revealed that the remaining service life of the still-flying fleet was critically short and modernization was impractical. Pre-coup Ukraine had received about 50 NK-25 engines with virtually untouched service life (from dismantling scrapped ones, as I understand it) plus repairs, allowing them to scrape together 30 units, which they wanted to modernize... but changed their minds. Instead, they simply expanded the order for Su-34s. And that was the right decision.
Moreover, the Su-34's creator intended his aircraft to be able to carry Oniks missiles, and eventually Zircons. Currently, it will also be able to carry Kinzhal missiles, as there are only 20-24 MiG-31Ks, and they don't last forever.
And the Tu-22M3s are reaching the end of their service life and are being retired. The MRA needs a new aircraft. I've written about this many times before. The Sukhoi Design Bureau can handle it, and quite quickly.

[alexoff]

Reading the author's articles, one gets the feeling that he is somewhere on the verge of imprisonment for disclosing military secrets.

[Andrey62]

Reading the author's articles, one gets the feeling that he is somewhere on the verge of imprisonment for disclosing military secrets.

Yes, here everything seems to be "dosed out" and only some "numbers and letters"... In the same USSR there were leaks of classified data, even in this article they indirectly touched on them, and there are also articles after Nikita Sergeyevich's "shoe"... Everything is sometimes more complicated than it seems and vice versa, and the truth is in the middle.

[bayard]

The author is well acquainted with the limits of what is permitted and the regime of secrecy. He is entitled to it by virtue of his status and specialization.

[P]

Nuclear weapons, as a means of deterrence, can work in cases where they either negate all enemy plans upon use or threaten the enemy, their habitats, and their families with outright destruction. And the clearer it is to the decision maker that their family, friends, and classmates are targets for guaranteed destruction, the less likely it is that aggression will be decided upon. There's no particular reason to fry Johns down to the 8 Mile, where the buses don't run. But the Ivy League, Manhattan, and the expensive LA suburbs should be fried to the core.

[ayk]

The main problem for the United States is China's growing strategic nuclear forces, which will soon overtake those of Russia and the United States. In this case, the global strategic balance will be disrupted. The United States understands this perfectly well, which is why they are trying to draw China into negotiations on limiting its strategic nuclear forces. China, of course, will not agree. In 2-5 years, Russia, China, and North Korea will have an advantage over the United States, France, Great Britain, and Israel. This situation could prompt the United States to launch a military operation against China with the aim of destroying its nuclear capabilities before it builds up its nuclear forces to the level of the United States. The Golden Dome will not be created anytime soon, so there is no point in discussing it. The problem for the USSR, and now Russia, is that medium-range missiles stationed in Europe can strike key targets in Russia, while our response with similar missiles will only hit targets in Europe. To hit targets in the United States, we need to use ICBMs and SLBMs. That is why the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed. Another serious problem facing the United States is the obsolescence of its nuclear arsenal. US missiles and nuclear warheads were primarily developed and produced in the 1970s and 1980s, while Russia's strategic nuclear forces are 90% modernized. China is rapidly developing its strategic nuclear forces, meaning they will be almost entirely new. This means the United States must make an effort to modernize its nuclear arsenal over the next 10 years. This is a time when the US nuclear industry is clearly not in the best condition. Therefore, Russia's situation in this area will only improve. This circumstance can be used to pressure the United States to reach acceptable and beneficial agreements for Russia on strategic security.

[staer-62]

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, all the parameters of previous treaties have become obsolete, and Russia has found itself in an extremely unfavorable position. Back then, there was a vast Union with republics, the Baltics, Ukraine, and the Warsaw Pact countries. Now that's gone, the entire world, except for China and India, is against us, and even that's questionable. Therefore, all treaties must be eliminated as harmful to Russia, and the production and testing of nuclear weapons on an industrial scale must begin. I don't know if this is the case now, but we need to calculate all the priority targets in Europe and the number of warheads needed to destroy them. We also need to determine how many nuclear weapons would be required to destroy European cities to prevent mobilization and the possibility of an attack on Russia. We are alone in this world, and they want to destroy us. Ukraine is just a stage, so they must strike first. Unfortunately, our authorities' personal fear outweighs their responsibility for Russia, which means they will destroy us because our enemies have more audacity, hatred, courage, and bravery.