Military Review

The creator of "Poplar" does not see the point in the new "Satan"

The creator of "Poplar" does not see the point in the new "Satan"The development of an updated version of the PC-20 “Voevoda” (“Satan” in the NATO classification) heavy ballistic missile contradicts disarmament logic, is environmentally unsafe and does not correspond to the current course of modernization, warns the designer of the Bulava and Topol-M rockets.

About last year's development of heavy fuel oil missiles of a new type were told last week by the general director of the Rosobschemash corporation Arthur Usenkov.

According to him, the new missile, which may appear in eight years, will be able to overcome any existing and prospective missile defense system.

Like the "Satan", the new missile, while not having a name, will carry a separable warhead of ten nuclear warheads.

Technological gap and environmental harm

Yuri Solomonov, the general designer of the Rosobschemash competitor, the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering (MIT), urges not to hurry and limit it to draft works, "and then look at the specific situation."

According to the designer, the Bulava, which has not yet been put into service, will not only not reduce the technological gap with other countries, but also make the gap irreplaceable.

Solomonov, last year after several unsuccessful launches of the Bulava, voluntarily retiring from his post as head of the MIT, also believes that the development of a heavy rocket of a new type contradicts disarmament logic and harms the environment.

Heavy missiles use "poisonous components," which, in his opinion, "is unacceptable in missile complexes of the 21st century."

"Flight tests of complexes, which, in fact, are toxic substances and will pollute the environment - akin to man-hatred," said Solomonov.

Psychological weapon

Experts note the psychological significance of such weapons, but doubt whether there is enough resources to create a new rocket.

"The issue of a heavy strategic missile is very difficult. On the one hand, such missiles have exhausted themselves. Today there is no need to have 10 warheads with a capacity of one megaton each. For solving military tasks, such capacities are excessive. They cannot be used, as this will lead to an enormous ecological disaster There is no financial, military or economic sense to create such missiles. On the other hand, the presence of such missiles has psychological significance. They seriously warn a possible aggressor about the destroyer awn retaliation ", - said executive editor of" Independent Military Review "Viktor Litovkin.

According to the expert, if the United States refuses to ratify the START treaty and the arms race begins, heavy missiles can play a deterrent role, but they will never be used.

"There is, of course, the interest of Solomonov as a developer of solid-fuel missiles. But the question is that today you can make miniature nuclear warheads - 50-150 kilotons of power. They are capable of solving the same tasks that megaton warheads solve. Especially if we are talking about military tasks, not fighting civilians, destroying cities, etc. In Solomon’s position, there is a desire to compete, but, on the other hand, a sensible, rational approach, ”the expert believes.
Originator:"rel =" nofollow ">

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Alexander
    Alexander 24 February 2011 21: 55
    Of course he doesn’t see it, because it was he who lost the “blue” with his “club”, I wonder how he lobbied for his project. He drowned a competitor and is cowering, he moved into greenais ...
    1. Civil
      Civil 25 October 2011 14: 56
      not to Blue, but to Bark ...

      the development of a new type of heavy rocket runs counter to disarmament logic and harms ecology

      You tell the builders of missile defense, let them laugh too
  2. forma2
    forma2 25 October 2011 14: 38
    What is the actual question?
    Not the main thing than to go to the mount and for what it is and what to do with it.
    You can just scare him and he will run. And to eat it you need to catch a kill to cook, it can even save for longer.
    So it is with the USA. Or ot_kh_eryat and are content with its resources or become a resource itself.
    Q. One trilogy: Who whom when?
    1. alexng
      alexng 12 February 2012 22: 49
      And here is the trilogy itself. laughing
  3. Kommunar
    Kommunar 5 November 2011 23: 58
    Flight tests of the complexes, which, in fact, are toxic substances and will pollute the environment, are akin to misanthropy, "Solomonov said.
    How does this phrase coexist with nuclear warheads that take off in this rocket ???
    To solve military problems, such capacities are excessive. It is impossible to apply them, as this will lead to an environmental disaster on a huge scale.
    If such a weapon went in, then I’m only for the enemy to have awesome environmental problems
    There is no financial, military or economic sense in creating such missiles. On the other hand, however, the presence of such missiles has a psychological significance. They seriously warn a potential aggressor about the destructiveness of a retaliatory strike, "Viktor Litovkin, executive editor of the Independent Military Review, told
  4. VikVik741
    VikVik741 6 December 2011 15: 48
    Making green nuclear weapons is like asking the executioner to use a sterile ax))