Military Review

"Sarmat" will replace the "Governor"

60
The presence in the combat squadron of the Strategic Missile Forces of a powerful liquid ICBM will allow to create a high-precision missile system with non-nuclear equipment and practically global range


So far, little is known about the possibilities and promising architecture of the created US missile defense. By offering further reductions in nuclear arsenals, the Americans themselves do not refuse to build new bastions of their own missile defense system. How dangerous is it for our country? What could be the development scenarios for this problem? We touched on these topics in a conversation with the military expert, Chief of the General Staff of the Strategic Missile Forces in 1994 – 1996, retired Colonel-General Viktor Esin.

"MIC": Viktor Ivanovich, from what, from your point of view, depends on the future appearance of the Strategic Missile Forces? Will it change?

"Sarmat" will replace the "Governor"- Historically, the appearance of the Strategic Missile Forces was formed under the influence of the main requirements for the shock group - its ability to ensure the delivery of an unacceptable for the aggressor nuclear missile strike. This requirement predetermined the two-component construction of a strike force, which includes two types of missile systems - mine and mobile. The former make the main contribution to the potential for a retaliatory strike, the latter jointly with the SSBN (a strategic missile submarine) constitute the potential for a retaliatory strike by the Russian strategic nuclear forces.

Today, the share of the Strategic Missile Forces in the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces is more than 60 percent on carriers, on nuclear warheads - two thirds. But the contribution of this type of troops to the implementation of the task of nuclear deterrence is determined not only by this. The strike force of the Strategic Missile Forces has the highest combat readiness, measured in units of minutes, the all-weather solution of the tasks assigned, and the stability of command and control. By these indicators, it surpasses other components of the SNF.

Repeatedly conducted simulations of various possible scenarios for the start of a nuclear war showed that a two-component construction of a strike force is the most optimal. Figuratively speaking, it ensures the “equal strength” of the group and its ability to adequately respond to nuclear aggression against Russia in any situation. Therefore, both in the foreseeable and in the long term, the appearance of the Strategic Missile Forces does not need to be changed. This is confirmed by the plans for the construction and development of this type of troops, which were discussed in May this year in Sochi and approved by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"MIC": How do you assess the dynamics of the rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces to new missile systems?

- Currently, the ratio of missile systems of new and old types in the Strategic Missile Forces is 28 and 72 percent, respectively. Colonel-General Sergei Karakayev, commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, said that by the end of 2016, the share of new missile systems would double, and in 2021, the upgrade of the strike group would be almost complete (at least 98 percent).

It seems to me that it is possible to fulfill these plans only with an increase in the rate of entry of new missile systems into the combat personnel of the Strategic Missile Forces. This is provided for by the current State Armaments Program, but there are certain difficulties in its implementation. They are caused both by the admitted lagging behind in the reconstruction of the production base of enterprises producing rocket complexes and by the lack of capacity of construction organizations engaged in the re-equipment of combat and technical positions in missile formations.

Alone, the RVSN and the Russian Ministry of Defense are not able to solve these problems alone. This requires the coordinated work of all government agencies involved in the implementation of the state defense order.

"MIC": Over the past decade, strategic rocket engineers have experienced the third solid-propellant missile system. What is the reason?

- First of all, it should be noted that the Topol-M, Yars and the so-called modernized Yars missile systems belong to the same family of solid-fuel rocket complexes. They are essentially the product of a profound, phased modernization of the proven Topol missile system.

In this regard, Russia follows the world practice of rocket production. So, for example, the Americans subjected their similar Minuteman rocket system to multiple upgrades, switching from the Minuteman-2 to the Minuteman-3 ICBM, and then creating several versions of the same Minuteman-3, which differ mainly combat equipment. It is no secret that the Russian Topol-M and Yars ICBMs, in principle, also differ only in combat equipment.

The need to improve the created missile system is not a whim of the chief designer, but an objective given, due to several factors. These include such as the emerging need to increase the combat capabilities of the complex, including defeating specific targets, giving it new abilities in maneuverability and secrecy of actions, or in the reliability of overcoming missile defense systems. In particular, the latter factor largely determined the need to modernize the Yars missile system.

"MIC": The modernized missile system "Yars" differs from its predecessor?

- Without disclosing secrets, it can be argued that the modernized Yars missile system will have more advanced combat equipment and enhanced capabilities for overcoming the missile defense. In a mobile deployment variant, this rocket complex will acquire greater maneuverability and secrecy of action.

"MIC": How long will the missile complex with the "heavy" ICBM "Voevoda" last? Will Russia manage to prepare him a worthy replacement?

- The achieved service life of the missile system with the “Voevoda” ICBM is 25 years with a warranty period of operation 15 years. There is a really achievable opportunity to increase the achieved service life to 30 years. In the case of its implementation, the missile system will remain in the combat operations of the Strategic Missile Forces until 2022.

Now, a decision has been taken and is being implemented to create a new missile system (Sarmat experimental design work) to replace the missile complex with the Voevoda ICBM. It is planned to adopt it in 2018 year. After that, its deployment will begin in those missile formations that are currently armed with a missile complex with the “Voevoda” ICBM. If these plans can be implemented, “Voevod” will be prepared a worthy replacement.

"MIC": It is clear that liquid-fuel rockets may have a greater payload than solid propellant ones. However, is this the only reason why we so need “heavy” rockets?

“The high energy capabilities of the new liquid MBR as compared to solid-fuel ones make it possible to implement more diverse and effective ways of overcoming the global missile defense system created by the Americans. This is especially important if a decision is made in Washington to deploy a space train of impact weapons as part of the missile defense system.

However, as stated by the commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel-General Sergey Karakaev, the presence in the combat personnel of a powerful liquid ICBM will allow to realize such opportunities as the creation of a high-precision missile system with non-nuclear equipment and practically global range. This will be an adequate response of the United States if they do not abandon their program to create such missile systems.

"MIC": It seems that we first reduced our strategic nuclear potential, following the lead of the Americans, and now we are reviving it again by investing a lot of money. Is it so?

- This is not the essence of the problem. The fact is that at the end of the past and the beginning of this century, Russia was doomed to reduce its strategic nuclear forces, even if it refused to fulfill the START-1 Treaty, signed by the Soviet Union and the United States in 1991. During this period, most of the strategic carriers of the nuclear weapons, inherited from the collapsed Soviet Union of Russia, have developed their operational resources and were subject to withdrawal from service because of obsolescence. Many of them were an environmental threat. The landslide reduction of the Russian strategic nuclear forces was not compensated by the introduction of new carriers of nuclear weapons into the combat strength. Due to the collapse in the economy, Russia in the 90s was able to adopt a single, new, missile-based Topol-M missile system. All other programs for rearming the SNF have been frozen. And the Americans are not involved in this.

If we had not gone to the conclusion of this START Treaty, as some ultra-patriots suggested, the US superiority in strategic nuclear potential would at least be preserved, or even increase. So, the signing of the new START Treaty in Prague in April of 2010 turned out to be more beneficial for us than for the Americans. A paradoxical situation has now developed. To meet the February 2018 of the year in the limits of the New START Treaty, the Americans will have to reduce their strategic offensive forces, but we need to increase the number of deployed carriers to meet these limits.

"MIC": Should Russia, as in Soviet times, strive to achieve parity with the United States in the number of strategic carriers of nuclear weapons?

- It seems that this should not be done. The main thing for the Russian strategic nuclear forces is to have the potential that is capable of providing full-fledged nuclear deterrence, and this task is also solved when there is an imbalance with the United States in terms of the number of strategic carriers. In the end, targets, not carriers, defeat targets.

Yes, while the Americans will have a great return potential of strategic offensive forces. But this will not have a significant impact on the Russian nuclear deterrence potential, since none of the parties to the new START Treaty will be able to use the return potential while being within its framework.

"MIC": Viktor Ivanovich, what are the prospects in the dialogue on missile defense? Is the development of offensive weapons the only asymmetric response of Russia?

- I do not see prospects for achieving a mutually acceptable compromise on the missile defense issue. Russia insists that the United States provide it with legally binding guarantees on the non-directionality of the missile defense system they are setting up against the Russian strategic nuclear forces, which must contain clear and verifiable criteria confirming this non-directivity. The United States, having left 2002 from the indefinite ABM Treaty signed with us in 1972, does not want any restrictions imposed on the missile defense system they are creating.

In this situation, Russia has no choice but to qualitatively improve the potential of its strategic nuclear forces, giving them the ability to reliably overcome the global missile defense system created by the Americans. This is the least expensive, and most importantly, the most effective asymmetric response to the deployment of US missile defense.

This does not mean that Russia should not improve its aerospace defense. But since it is impossible to provide air defense and antimissile defense of the entire Russian territory, priorities should be determined. Our country has a completely creditworthy nuclear deterrence, which serves as a kind of insurance policy against direct military threats on a large scale. Hence, the task of the first stage is to provide reliable anti-aircraft and anti-missile cover for the combat forces of the Russian strategic nuclear forces, thereby increasing their combat stability.

The task of the second stage is to improve and build up air defense and antimissile defense groups of the Armed Forces, which are designed to act on possible theater of operations.

And thirdly, with the remaining resources available, efforts should be directed to the anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense of other major state objects: administrative-political and large industrial centers, vital infrastructure.

The proposed ranking in solving the problems of aerospace defense with the allowable expenditure of resources will create in Russia in the foreseeable future an air defense and missile defense system that, together with the potential for nuclear deterrence, will be able to prevent large-scale aggression.

"MIC": How dangerous is the US missile defense system for us?

- Fearing that before 2020, Americans will create a system capable of intercepting Russian ICBMs is not worth it. But this does not mean that Russia should ignore the missile defense issue. If the Americans had said that they would limit themselves to this and that, one would not have to worry. But they do not make any promises.

As an expert who has devoted this problem for more than one year, I believe that in the guise in which they create their missile defense system, for the 2020 – 2025 period it will not have the ability to significantly affect Russia's nuclear deterrence potential.

"MIC": Do not we find ourselves in the "grip" of missile defense?

- Large anti-missile potential is attached to American first-class surface ships - cruisers and destroyers equipped with the Aegis universal combat system with Standard-3M-type antimissiles of various modifications. Possessing such a mobile antimissile potential, the United States, under certain conditions, is able to deploy these ships in the seas adjacent to Russia. Our country may find itself in the “grip” of missile defense, which must be taken into account in military planning and provide for measures, the implementation of which would avoid it or break these “grip” in the event of a real military threat.

"MIC": What do you see as scenarios for the development of a missile defense problem?

- I would like to be mistaken, but I believe that in the foreseeable future the missile defense problem will escalate. I hope this will not lead to a new cold war, but, apparently, will result in another round of the arms race. Well, if the United States deployed missile anti-missile systems in space, the scale of the arms race will increase immeasurably. Moreover, this process will affect not only Russia and the United States, but also all the leading states, including China, India and Brazil.

"MIC": Is it possible now to make some kind of diagnosis of the US missile defense system in connection with the unsuccessful tests of an interceptor missile in early July?

- The fact that the missile defense system created by the Americans is imperfect is recognized not only by the US Congressmen, but also by the Missile Defense Agency. To intercept one combat unit, covered by a complex of means for overcoming missile defense, you need seven to eight anti-missile missiles, which are deployed in Alaska and in California. In addition, the Americans have not yet conducted a single test on the real interception of the combat unit of an intercontinental missile. They are limited to intercepting targets.

If we talk about the last test of the anti-missile GBI launched from the US Air Force "Vandenberg" in California in early July, it was aimed at checking the effectiveness of the improved interception stage. The primary version of this stage on the GBI was not what the Americans would like to see. Anti-missile finalized and tested, but unsuccessfully. As far as I know, there was a slip. Apparently, the conditions of the target situation were complicated. But there are many other problems, in particular, related to the fact that the interception level cannot distinguish false targets from a real combat unit. In general, according to a report by the General Reporting Office (US Chamber of Accounts), published in April 2012 of the year, only seven of the most important technical problems from 39 were solved by the developers of the American missile defense system. Ways to overcome more 15 problems have been identified, but no technical solution has yet been found for the remaining 17.

Taking into account the opinion of the developers of the American missile defense, I believe that the task of anti-missile defense of the US territory from a massive missile strike is hardly feasible. However, if the Americans deployed a shock space echelon of missile defense, the solution will be significantly simplified. But it will cause an arms race. Already in space.

"MIC": What will happen next?

- Predicting is easy. Initially, Americans will gain a certain advantage by deploying their shock systems in extraterrestrial space. Excellence will be short. Then Russia, China and other countries will follow their example. As a result, instead of improving the security of the United States, spending enormous resources will have the opposite effect - the risks of threats will increase. The idea of ​​increasing the security of the United States from nuclear missile threats will result in global strategic destabilization.

I think that the United States will not go to this step. Yes, now the draft treaty introduced by Russia and China to ban the launch of any assault weapons into space is not discussed at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, because due to the obstructionist position of Pakistan on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons agree on the agenda for this conference. Nevertheless, many countries support such a treaty on space. Americans still do not say yes or no. They tend to support the proposed code of conduct in outer space by countries of the European Union, which does not have legal force. This, of course, does not suit most other countries. After all, there is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Placement of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Space. It must be supplemented by the fact that any impact weapons must not be placed in space.

For the sake of truth, I note that now the United States has drastically reduced the activity of research conducted in the field of creating space shock systems. However, for them it is a necessary measure dictated by the financial constraints that the US Department of Defense is experiencing.

"MIC": Will the new round of the arms race begin with the modernization of tactical nuclear weapons, which the Pentagon is embarking on?

- There is no need to speak about any new turn in the race of American tactical nuclear weapons. On the contrary, the Pentagon set a course for reducing the tactical nuclear arsenal, but not because of peacefulness, but because of the loss of its military significance by the American tactical nuclear weapons. In the American arsenal of armaments, it is superseded by high-precision conventional weapons, in which the United States surpasses all other countries of the world by an order of magnitude.

"MIC": Is it possible to predict any changes in the balance of power of the "nuclear club"?

- Changes are already happening. Russia and the United States, within the framework of bilateral agreements, limit and reduce their nuclear arsenals; the United Kingdom and France follow their example, but outside of any international agreements, while other nuclear states - China, India, Pakistan, Israel and the DPRK are increasing their nuclear arsenals. The current situation is of concern to the military-political leadership of Russia. Therefore, Moscow insists that the next round of negotiations on the limitation and reduction of nuclear weapons should become multilateral, with the maximum possible participation of the countries possessing nuclear weapons.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. biglow
    biglow 4 September 2013 17: 46 New
    12
    everything is very well and thoroughly described. It’s immediately obvious that a person is deeply versed in the topic
    1. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 4 September 2013 21: 51 New
      -1
      Quote: biglow
      It’s immediately obvious that a person is deeply versed in the topic

      Still would. After all, but still a military expert, retired chief of staff of the Strategic Missile Forces in 1994-1996 Victor Yesin. This is not a push-button deviator Pupkin Vasily!
    2. xmel2003
      xmel2003 5 September 2013 03: 18 New
      -3
      A man is possible, but hamsters who asked questions are not very.
  2. repytw
    repytw 4 September 2013 20: 01 New
    +7
    The question under consideration about non-nuclear units in the Sarmat ICBM can be considered positive, since it will allow Russia in the event of an attack by non-nuclear precision weapons to respond adequately to strategic objects on the territory of the aggressor countries. It would be even better to create anti-aircraft ICBMs, and not to equip nuclear ICBMs with volume-detonating and cluster units, then these missiles can also become weapons of mass destruction without any agreements. And with the threat of the use of an aggressor in cities, it will nullify the idea of ​​bombarding us with high-precision weapons without a nuclear war.
    1. Interface
      Interface 4 September 2013 20: 27 New
      +1
      Well, Sarmat is 30 years handicap for Russia, then it will be necessary to modernize, as before Satan. Americans will only replace X-TRAXX-yy
      Well, the positive news is short)
    2. shpuntik
      shpuntik 4 September 2013 20: 43 New
      +6
      repytw SU Today, 20:01 New
      The question under consideration about non-nuclear units in the Sarmat ICBM can be considered positive, as it will allow Russia in the event of an attack by non-nuclear precision weapons to respond adequately to strategic objects on the territory of the aggressor countries.

      Gregory hi And when she flies, how does the SHA find out that they are non-nuclear? Call them, warn?
      Second point: Delivery is too expensive for the usual supply. There are cruise missiles from the plane, please, anywhere. With the submarine as well.
      Take a look at the video with Kvachkov, I posted recently, there is a casual mention of it. The point is that the ShA want to remove our missiles with 10 blocks, they can’t digest them for a long time. For the first time I hear about ordinary warheads, I am in a slight shock from the absurdity of this ...

    3. The comment was deleted.
  3. Strashila
    Strashila 4 September 2013 20: 19 New
    0
    "The high energy capabilities of the new liquid ICBM in comparison with solid-propellant ones make it possible to implement more diverse and effective ways to overcome the global missile defense system created by the Americans." ... one asks why they fenced a garden with a submarine mace ... a mystery of the universe, however !!! ?
    1. ziqzaq
      ziqzaq 4 September 2013 21: 03 New
      +4
      Quote: Strashila
      the question is why did they plant a garden with a mace for submarines ... however, the mystery of the universe !!! !!!

      Solid fuel carrier firstly: it is safe from an environmental point of view, secondly: it is much safer to use (less accident in principle),
      thirdly: easier to operate, etc., etc. So the use of a solid fuel carrier on a nuclear submarine is very justified .... IMHO of course ......
  4. Tu-214R
    Tu-214R 4 September 2013 20: 32 New
    +2
    But since it is impossible to provide air defense and missile defense for the entire Russian territory ...

    says terrible things - will someone have to sacrifice in the event of a ragnarok?
  5. shpuntik
    shpuntik 4 September 2013 20: 36 New
    +4
    However, as stated by the commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel-General Sergey Karakaev, the presence in the combat personnel of a powerful liquid ICBM will allow to realize such opportunities as the creation of a high-precision missile system with non-nuclear equipment and practically global range. This will be an adequate response of the United States if they do not abandon their program to create such missile systems.

    Non-nuclear ICBMs are an adequate response ?! wassat In my amer this is necessary.
    And then: is the delivery too expensive for an ordinary warhead? In my opinion, Kvachkov correctly said that they are reducing the number of barley.
  6. VadimSt
    VadimSt 4 September 2013 20: 39 New
    -1
    This does not mean that Russia should not improve its aerospace defense. But since it is impossible to provide air defense and antimissile defense of the entire Russian territory, priorities should be determined. Our country has a completely creditworthy nuclear deterrence, which serves as a kind of insurance policy against direct military threats on a large scale. Hence, the task of the first stage is to provide reliable anti-aircraft and anti-missile cover for the combat forces of the Russian strategic nuclear forces, thereby increasing their combat stability.

    The task of the second stage is to improve and build up air defense and antimissile defense groups of the Armed Forces, which are designed to act on possible theater of operations.

    And thirdly, with the remaining resources available, efforts should be directed to the anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense of other major state objects: administrative-political and large industrial centers, vital infrastructure.


    This is an answer to those who, in the comments to the article - "Moscow will be surrounded by the latest radar systems", groundlessly lamented that "everything is bad, because everything is outdated, and not only Moscow needs an umbrella."
  7. Brave
    Brave 4 September 2013 20: 46 New
    -1
    Quote: biglow
    everything is very well and thoroughly described. It’s immediately obvious that a person is deeply versed in the topic

    And there is!
  8. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 4 September 2013 20: 50 New
    +1
    Therefore, Moscow insists that the next round of talks on the limitation and reduction of nuclear weapons become multilateral, with the maximum possible participation of countries that possess nuclear weapons.
    This is not Moscow insists .. and Obama .. (plus the article without thinking)) Russia is surrounded by NATO bases and their missile defense .. (I think soon the West will offer to reduce our modern SAM systems S-300, 400,500, etc. they are their own " The Patriot "is being disposed of .. Our ICBMs are the most powerful and unpredictable weapon of arrest (when warheads are divided) .. Which guarantees retribution in the event of an attack on our country ..
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. mazdie
        mazdie 5 September 2013 01: 17 New
        0
        Hamsters hammered, your place on the echo of the matzo!
        1. shpuntik
          shpuntik 5 September 2013 01: 33 New
          +1
          mazdie Today, 01:17 ↑ New
          Hamsters hammered, your place on the echo of the matzo!

          The answer is too short, unintelligible. I do not belong to ashkenazy. Are there any objections to the case and the figures in the video? No? With Seliger recently, or what? wassat Then keep up with:
          hi
          1. studentmati
            studentmati 5 September 2013 01: 40 New
            +3
            The video is good !!! good And very rare !!!

            What is this video related to "Voevoda" and "Sarmat"?
            1. shpuntik
              shpuntik 5 September 2013 01: 46 New
              +4
              studentmati (3) SU Today, 01:40 ↑ New
              The video is good !!! good And very rare !!!
              What is this video related to "Voevoda" and "Sarmat"?

              The most direct: rearmament of the army. Put conventional warheads on a 200 ton rocket. This is the collapse of the army, wrecking. They themselves commented on why cobblestone in a gold frame. Video to a comrade who attributed me to the Moscow ECHO and thinks that he is not a hamster. :-)
              PS It’s one thing when there are 250 missiles with 1 warhead, and another when 10 missiles each. 250 vs 2500. Is there a difference? That's right, no missile defense can hold.
              1. studentmati
                studentmati 5 September 2013 01: 50 New
                0
                Quote: shpuntik
                The most direct: rearmament of the army. Put conventional warheads on a 200 ton rocket. This is the collapse of the army. They themselves commented on why cobblestone in a gold frame. Video to a comrade who attributed me to the Moscow ECHO and thinks that he is not a hamster. :-)


                I apologize, but did not catch up, "I confirm the stone in the frame", but what is the connection with Israel ???
                1. shpuntik
                  shpuntik 5 September 2013 01: 59 New
                  +2
                  Colonel-General
                  studentmati (3) SU Today, 01:50 ↑ New
                  I apologize, but did not catch up, "I confirm the stone in the frame", but what is the connection with Israel ???

                  Betrayal. There must be one thing, either with the Hubbadniks or with the Christians. Or not?
                  1. studentmati
                    studentmati 5 September 2013 02: 02 New
                    +1
                    Quote: shpuntik
                    Betrayal. There must be one thing, either with the Hubbadniks or with the Christians. Or not?


                    I understand you, thanks! Do not forget that he is a politician. And a scout by training.

                    The video itself is just a conversation by no means, even if the president. I see no reason to inflate an elephant from a fly ...
              2. studentmati
                studentmati 5 September 2013 02: 00 New
                0
                Quote: shpuntik
                PS It’s one thing when there are 250 missiles with 1 warhead, and another when 10 missiles each. 250 vs 2500. Is there a difference? That's right, no missile defense can hold.


                Does anyone have any arguments against? I don’t see anyone arguing?
                1. shpuntik
                  shpuntik 5 September 2013 02: 06 New
                  +2
                  studentmati (3) SU Today, 02:00 ↑ New
                  Does anyone have any arguments against? I don’t see anyone arguing?

                  Alexander, dear, but I see. The video was put - that means against. And there is a general picture, pretentious of course, rough, there are inaccuracies, but on the whole it is true. These are all links in one chain. If they want to make such a "Sarmat", then what to talk about?
  9. SPACE
    SPACE 4 September 2013 21: 10 New
    +8
    Considering the fact that Makeev’s design bureau will develop a new missile, Sarmat will most likely be upgraded Sineva’s land and doesn’t suit Voevode, except for the replacement of the UR-100. In general, the Voivode can be replaced, only the new Voivode, nothing to reinvent the wheel, you just need to copy the Voivode and produce, taking into account new technologies and materials, to be installed in the same mines. Governor, Masterpiece of rocket science, 10 tons of cast weight! Ten megaton-class blocks or one in 20 megatons, in 30 minutes the ten largest cities, 10 tons of non-nuclear explosives, a couple of three missiles can fill any area of ​​the globe! So what can it equivalently replace? This is not progress, this is regression, think better, comrades, the military, how would you regret it later, “measure ten times, cut once”, do not put all your eggs in one basket ...
    1. Jipo
      Jipo 4 September 2013 21: 47 New
      -4
      Voivode was developed in Ukraine. I heard an opinion that it will not be possible to restore the technology, everything is lost, stolen, sold.
      1. Suhov
        Suhov 5 September 2013 00: 05 New
        0
        Quote: JIPO
        I heard that it’s impossible to restore the technology, everything is lost, stolen, sold.


        Not the first time. History in Russia goes around in circles, often returning to old rake.
        wassat

        Letter from Peter the Great to Menshikov

        I am sending one hundred rubles
        To build ships
        How do you get, give an answer
        Started to build or not?

        Response to the letter

        Ninety three rubles
        ** and drank
        How do you get, give an answer
        Build on or not?

        Letter from Peter the Great to Menshikov

        My king's will
        Know I do not know either ***
        Where did they drink whom ****
        But that there were ships!
        sad
      2. mazdie
        mazdie 5 September 2013 01: 16 New
        -1
        Built in Russia
    2. Nitup
      Nitup 4 September 2013 23: 02 New
      0
      Why create a copy of the Voivode to replace it? If a rocket weighs about 100 tons and casts tons of 4-4,5 at 11000 km with high launch speed and high accuracy, then this is quite enough. It’s just that the Voivode has such powerful warheads, because the accuracy is not so great, the KVO is about 400 m, if the new KVO missile has 100-150 meters, then the charge power can be significantly reduced.
      1. mazdie
        mazdie 5 September 2013 01: 14 New
        +1
        I do not agree, except for the destruction of the goal itself, the overall damage is also important. The enemy must be afraid, this is the meaning of deterrence. The possibility of destroying civilization as a whole!
      2. xmel2003
        xmel2003 5 September 2013 03: 16 New
        0
        No - 1Mtona-1 large city
      3. SPACE
        SPACE 5 September 2013 05: 21 New
        0
        Quote: Nitup

        Here at my place there is a small hammer, a large hammer and a sledgehammer, and sometimes a sledgehammer is simply necessary and not replaceable, and so the Voivode is a sledgehammer. In my opinion, it is necessary to have three classes of missiles in service with the Strategic Missile Forces: Topol / Yars, UR-100 / Sarmat, and not less than 30-50, taking into account the reserve of Voevoda missiles! By the way, instead of the warhead, on the basis of the Voivode, a fighter of IS satellites could be installed, which also stood on combat duty, or remember the P-Z6 ORB ... And all these possibilities can only be the Voivode, and given the current instability in the world, it is simply a sin to refuse from such an instrument which is the ROCKET OF THE VOEVEOD. And in advance I will say there are no problems or restrictions with the restoration of production of such a missile, on the same Makeev and large-scale serial production is not necessary, a couple of pieces a year will provide the need and need for the Strategic Missile Forces in such missiles.
      4. SPACE
        SPACE 5 September 2013 20: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: Nitup
        Why create a copy of the Voivode to replace it? If a rocket weighs about 100 tons and casts tons of 4-4,5 at 11000 km with high launch speed and high accuracy, then this is quite enough. It’s just that the Voivode has such powerful warheads, because the accuracy is not so great, the KVO is about 400 m, if the new KVO missile has 100-150 meters, then the charge power can be significantly reduced.

        Now imagine how much you can place the same low-power nuclear charges and throw with the same accuracy the 100-150 QUO, one Satan, 30pcs, 50pcs? She doesn’t even need false funds if there are three poplars in the “spitting” division, so call one Satan an ARMY! It’s easier to keep one Satan than 10 Topol or a couple of Sarmatians, ideally it is better to have both. The voivode has unlimited prospects and opportunities, this is a battering ram that can take out any missile defense with loops, along with an electronic iPhone, high-precision unmanned and other stealth garbage!
    3. mark1
      mark1 4 September 2013 23: 09 New
      -2
      Quote: SPACE
      Ten megaton-class blocks or one in 20 megatons, in 30 minutes the ten largest cities

      What bloodthirsty you are, my friend! That hand did not get a swaying sword swinging? In modern wars, they try to incapacitate the enemy with targeted surgical strikes on military and political targets, and you want to arrange some kind of genocide of all living things.
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 5 September 2013 04: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: mark1
        In modern wars, they try to incapacitate the enemy with targeted surgical strikes on military and political targets

        Point blows "Your girl in civilian life, so you will stroke" k / f 9th company, or as the Frenchmen wave a spade, hirgically, and we are Russians, we rarely hit, but with all the foolishness and with all the might ... more humane ...
        1. mark1
          mark1 5 September 2013 06: 22 New
          +1
          Quote: SPACE
          we are Russian, we rarely hit, but with all the foolishness and with all its might ... to immediately hoof it up, it's more humane

          We, Russians, are not at war with the civilian population and we do not put cities "under the knife", there are plenty of examples in the Second World War of how we saved civilians at the cost of our lives, and your position can be expressed a little differently - "we **** don't care what - something to cut, if only the blood would flow ... "
          1. SPACE
            SPACE 5 September 2013 21: 12 New
            0
            Quote: mark1
            We, Russians, are not at war with the civilian population and we do not put cities "under the knife", there are plenty of examples in the Second World War of how we saved civilians at the cost of our lives,

            A pacifist humanist? You still remember the Battle of Kulikovo. Interesting 20 000 000 victims of WWII, is it worth your humanism? Or do you think, be with Comrade Stalin in the arsenal of a similar weapon, he would not use it? So I think already on 23 of June 1941, Germany was blazing in a nuclear fire. Isn’t the weapon itself immoral, but not its justified use, or are you ready to sacrifice millions of your compatriots for the sake of morality? In war, all means are good ... unless of course they are.
            Quote: mark1
            and your position can be denoted a little differently - "we **** don't care what f-t, what to cut, as long as blood flows ..."

            But these are your shameless and stupid conjectures! and for this you MINUS!
      2. mark1
        mark1 5 September 2013 06: 37 New
        -3
        Quote: SPACE
        And in advance I will say there are no problems or restrictions with the restoration of production of such a missile, on the same Makeev and large-scale serial production is not necessary, a couple of pieces a year will provide the need and need for the Strategic Missile Forces in such missiles.

        You do not know the production. therefore, you don’t see any problems.
        1. SPACE
          SPACE 5 September 2013 21: 53 New
          0
          Quote: mark1
          You do not know the production. therefore, you don’t see any problems.

          For that, you know what I know. laughing Dityatko, I not only know and see, I solve them and I am not alone!
          1. mark1
            mark1 6 September 2013 04: 44 New
            -1
            If I’m a child for you, then apparently you’re an associate of Glushko and Korolev ... You, Dear, first shake the poop out of your diaper and then begin to suffer with delusions of grandeur. Judging by the style of your answers, you can’t not only decide something, you have serious restrictions on access to work, but you are many ... - you know, I’m starting to guess from which institution you are answering me.
            1. SPACE
              SPACE 6 September 2013 06: 40 New
              0
              Quote: mark1
              Judging by the style of your answers, you can’t not only decide something, you have serious restrictions on access to work, but you are many ... - you know, I’m starting to guess from which institution you are answering me.

              Dear Mark, judging by your style, you are sick, because doctors don’t take offense at the sick, so it makes no sense for me to be offended. I wish you hello!
    4. bif
      bif 5 September 2013 02: 58 New
      +1
      Sineva has already been modernized and, by the way, very successfully - "Project R-29RMU2.1" Liner "meant the creation of the most unified with the" Blue "rocket, meeting modern and future requirements in the areas of payload and overcoming missile defense .." http: // topwar .ru / 11329-layner-dlya-strategicheskoy-ekonomii.html
      It is strange to assume that 10 tons payload rocket will be used to replace a LIQUID rocket with a payload of 2 tons, and Miass is now the only one with successful experience in creating liquid rockets.
      1. studentmati
        studentmati 5 September 2013 03: 05 New
        +1
        My opinion is that we have already dropped to the level of development in the drawings, ala "Modelist-Constructor".

        Unfortunately, we were very sorry for the Designers who influenced the decisions of the Rulers. Therefore, in Russia, the lag in everything is progressing ...
        1. bif
          bif 5 September 2013 11: 24 New
          -1
          With this approach, you have nothing to do here .. if you just mock.
  10. Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 4 September 2013 21: 54 New
    0
    The rocket does not reach, unless, to the bottom of the Governor on two Sarmatians ...
    Is it a little expensive?
    Will not go.
    It is necessary to create with the same payload parameters.
  11. studentmati
    studentmati 4 September 2013 22: 01 New
    +5
    The presence in the combat squadron of the Strategic Missile Forces of a powerful liquid ICBM will allow to create a high-precision missile system with non-nuclear equipment and practically global range

    Why throw a cobblestone in gold cut? fool
    1. mark1
      mark1 4 September 2013 23: 00 New
      -2
      Quote: studentmati
      Why throw a cobblestone in gold cut?

      If you set the task of destroying a million-plus city with all people, dogs, cats and fish and leaving the lunar landscape for hundreds of years, then it is better to use a megaton-class warhead (ideally 3 - b.h. of MARV type). If you set the task more specifically - the destruction of nuclear power plants, chem. enterprises, ZKP, in some cases even a missile mine, etc. less ambitious targets but also very important, you can use a 5-ton warhead with a non-nuclear explosive (or even kinetic). CWS of modern ICBMs up to 120 -150 m, in the future 1-5 allow this to be done.
      1. studentmati
        studentmati 4 September 2013 23: 22 New
        0
        The formulation of such tasks made sense in the absence of more effective means and methods of defeat.
        1. mazdie
          mazdie 5 September 2013 01: 12 New
          0
          If you destroy industrial and residential areas, there will be no one to fight)
      2. 1c-inform-city
        1c-inform-city 5 September 2013 00: 32 New
        +1
        For some reason, everyone forgets that the missile mine is being built taking into account the opposition to a nuclear explosion and I think that not only 5 but 25 tons will not be enough to destroy it. Only cover 1000 tons of armored steel.
        1. mark1
          mark1 6 September 2013 05: 51 New
          0
          Quote: 1c-inform-city
          For some reason, everyone forgets that the missile mine is being built taking into account the opposition to a nuclear explosion and I think that not only 5 but 25 tons will not be enough to destroy it. Only cover 1000 tons of armored steel.

          At the expense of the ICBM mines, of course, I caught a little in the heat of the moment, I admit that there is no way to do without a nuclear warhead, moreover, with a small KVO and the possibility of deepening it into the ground by 25-60 meters. But for some reason, during the discussion, everyone decided that it was a matter of replacing nuclear warheads with conventional warheads. This is not about replacement (it’s stupid to deny the role of nuclear weapons, this is the main deterrent), rather, it’s about the appearance of a new subclass of strategic weapons - ICBMs with non-nuclear equipment. These missiles are not limited by any agreements either quantitatively or qualitatively (by the way, the idea is not ours, but the American one) and they can, for now, be unlimitedly expanded and used without the threat of a creep into a nuclear conflict (again, these are American arguments). As you understand, Russia is against such options because of the impossibility of controlling the equipment of ICBMs, but if the Americans begin, we must be ready to pick it up (and for example, in the event of a conflict with Qatar or the Saudis, this is more convenient than aviation)
    2. postman
      postman 6 September 2013 03: 54 New
      -1
      Quote: studentmati
      Why throw a cobblestone in gold cut?

      no longer "cobblestone"
      and the cut is no longer "gold"

      1. Let the launch of Proton $ 70 (Voivode / Satan is clearly cheaper - approx. 000 million)
      2. The price of war
      1991 - "Desert Storm"
      US: $ 61 billion
      Britain: $ 4,1 billion
      66 100 000 000,00 $= 2 200 pieces Governor
      2003 conflict
      US: $ 33 billion
      Britain: $ 5,5 billion
      38 500 000 000,00 $ = more than 1 governor
      ==============
      Loss of personnel = 0
      1000 governor will plow Iraq under winter crops in Ur (in the presence of high-precision WTO0)

      For London the nightmares were the non-fat V-1 and V-2
  12. studentmati
    studentmati 4 September 2013 22: 08 New
    +1
    Therefore, both in the foreseeable and distant future, the appearance of the Strategic Missile Forces does not need to be changed.

    Golden words! good

    Strategic Missile Forces needs to be modernized and strengthened !!!
  13. KBPC50
    KBPC50 4 September 2013 22: 24 New
    +1
    I have no doubt that kind strong citizens (that is, truly free people) will be able to create a system to repel attacks from the US and protect our Russia, our great Homeland of all numerous peoples and nationalities. God bless you scientists and military people !!!
  14. studentmati
    studentmati 4 September 2013 22: 24 New
    -5
    Initially, Americans will gain a certain advantage by deploying their strike systems in extraterrestrial space. Excellence will be short-lived.

    Excellence will be absolute!

    Then Russia, China and other countries will follow suit.

    Too heavy a burden to follow suit.

    As a result, instead of improving US security, spending huge resources will have the opposite effect - the risks of threats will increase.

    As a result, the United States receive SOI-2. The economies of Russia and China will collapse under the burden of exorbitant costs.

    The idea of ​​increasing the security of the United States against nuclear missile threats will result in global strategic destabilization.

    ... which only the United States benefits from destabilization ...
    1. mazdie
      mazdie 5 September 2013 01: 08 New
      +1
      1 explosion in outer space and all superiority will become worthless iron. As well as all smart systems of general battlefield o So firearms in your hands and fight. But this is not about you.
      I have the honor.
    2. Refund_SSSR
      Refund_SSSR 5 September 2013 03: 48 New
      0
      Ahhhh !! What to do !! everything is lost!!

      Several tons of nuts with bolts in low Earth orbit and space technology can be forgotten for several millennia.
      Not the SDI destroyed the USSR, but the USSR destroyed the SDI wink
  15. MASTER (MPS)
    MASTER (MPS) 4 September 2013 22: 24 New
    +2
    Hello!
    That's when they started talking about creating a new rocket as a replacement for the Satan.
    My first thought was
    - The main thing is that it does not inferior in its characteristics to its predecessor.
    And it will be like a mace. request
    1. Nitup
      Nitup 4 September 2013 23: 04 New
      -1
      Quote: MASTER
      And it will be like a mace

      And what about the Mace?
    2. mazdie
      mazdie 5 September 2013 01: 06 New
      +1
      Bark would be cooler, and the carriers under it were, and almost remained (
  16. Sobol
    Sobol 4 September 2013 22: 47 New
    +1
    Good evening.
    A couple of questions formed after reading the article.
    1 - “the well-proven Topol missile system. I want to ask. How did he prove himself perfectly? Any weapon can prove itself only in battle! There were no poplars in the battles (and thank God, otherwise we would now criticize someone instead of the USA).
    2 - Treaty banning the launch into space of any strike weapons. Treaty panacea? The US missile defense treaty, too, signed so what? They came out - only the fur coat was wrapped! Now they just slap their pru, only the fur coat is wrapped. Contracts are not a guarantee. It is necessary to develop their own shock space systems now, so that they would not have to catch up later.
    If, indeed, a worthy replacement for the "Governor" succeed, then this is very good!
    1. voliador
      voliador 4 September 2013 22: 59 New
      0
      And which ICBMs, dear, have been in battle, can you tell me?
      1. Sobol
        Sobol 4 September 2013 23: 08 New
        +1
        None. Therefore, I am writing that the phrase "well-proven" is not correct.
        1. Nitup
          Nitup 4 September 2013 23: 13 New
          0
          Quote: SoboL
          None. Therefore, I am writing that the phrase "well-proven" is not correct.

          She could perfectly prove herself during the operation in terms of mobility, stealth, reliability, ease of use, etc.
    2. mazdie
      mazdie 5 September 2013 01: 04 New
      0
      Why, drill a well by a lot of meters, and there you put in a charge with a capacity of 500 megatons. And all
  17. voliador
    voliador 4 September 2013 22: 59 New
    +3
    I think that equipping missiles of this class with non-nuclear warheads is quite expensive. Indeed, along with missiles with nuclear warheads, it will be necessary not only to produce missiles with conventional charges, but also mines and control gears for them, and this is a lot of money.
    1. Nitup
      Nitup 4 September 2013 23: 11 New
      +2
      Quote: voliador
      I think that equipping missiles of this class with non-nuclear warheads is quite expensive. Indeed, along with missiles with nuclear warheads, it will be necessary not only to produce missiles with conventional charges, but also mines and control gears for them, and this is a lot of money.

      Yes, it's not even about the cost. Non-nuclear ICBMs are provocative weapons. How will other countries understand which missile launched: nuclear or conventional? They can also respond in a retaliatory strike with a nuclear missile. Although it is unlikely that someone will strike back-on strike, it’s more likely to retaliate, since warning systems can malfunction and you can respond to a nonexistent strike. But still, who knows?
  18. listik
    listik 4 September 2013 23: 32 New
    0
    It became a little clearer in the situation of confrontation ... Thank you!
  19. mazdie
    mazdie 5 September 2013 01: 02 New
    0
    I have one question, how to replace a 200 ton rocket with a 100 ton, while maintaining the performance characteristics. The answer is only a doubling of the quantity. That is, for 1 decommissioned governor, 2 tons of missiles. Experts correct if not right.
  20. Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 5 September 2013 02: 26 New
    +2
    How is it in our opinion, to dazzle everyone with their stupid originality, as M. Zadornov put it: "to respond with unpredictable stupidity."
    ICBMs with non-nuclear warheads ... this is a masterpiece. The only question is, when will it be launched, how will the enemy determine its non-nuclear status, so as not to respond with nuclear weapons? Or maybe this scarecrow for distant non-nuclear most likely opponents? Who are they?
    In short, I’m not an expert in this field, therefore I express only my opinion. smile
    1. studentmati
      studentmati 5 September 2013 02: 38 New
      +2
      Quote: Peaceful military
      ICBMs with non-nuclear warheads ... this is a masterpiece.


      Your truth! See comments above ...
      1. postman
        postman 5 September 2013 03: 13 New
        -1
        Quote: studentmati
        Your truth! See comments above ...


        not "him" really ..... see the comment below repeat
    2. postman
      postman 5 September 2013 03: 12 New
      -1
      Quote: Peaceful military
      How is it in our opinion, to dazzle everyone with its stupid originality

      Quote: Peaceful military
      ICBMs with non-nuclear warheads ... this is a masterpiece

      why ours?

      Basic principles of building American strategic nuclear forces in the XNUMXst century


      - Prompt Global Strike (“instant global strike”), equipping SLBMs Trident II with high-precision non-nuclear warheads (presumably including kinetic, but not limited to them), which will allow the use of strategic carriers in ordinary conflicts, including local

      PGS Hypersonic Weapons Program (CPGSC)



      As the most promising weapons options under the PGS program, the expert committee considered six projects:
      - CTM-1 - the upgrade option comes down to replacing the nuclear warheads on the three-stage Trident D5 ICBMs with non-nuclear ones. Modifications must undergo 2 ICBMs out of every 24 based on nuclear submarines. The upgraded missile warhead will include four combat modules (penetrating and cluster options), each of which is equipped with a guidance and control system. With proper funding, the re-equipment of the rocket can be carried out within 1-2 years;
      - STM-2 - a variant of the modification of the Trident rocket, proposed by the expert committee as a medium-term perspective. It is proposed to replace the third stage of the rocket with additional non-nuclear combat load of various types: with KER kinetic striking elements, with reconnaissance UAVs, etc. The estimated range is 7000 km;
      - SLGSM - a new two-stage ICBM with a monoblock warhead launched from submarines; This is a conceptual proposal by the US Navy for the medium and long term. It is taken into account that underwater basing it is possible to hit any target with missiles of shorter range with less powerful solid propellant rocket engines;
      - CSM-1 - ICBMs with a highly maneuverable planning combat unit (PBB) launched from the United States. The concept was put forward by the US Air Force and supplemented by the proposals of the expert committee. Another variant of the PBB is the promising AHW hypersonic weapon with a declared range of 8000 km being developed by the US Army;
      - CSM-2 - development of the CSM-1 concept: increasing the planning time of the BSP from 800 to 3000 s, adaptation to ground based in the USA, sea (submarine) and air;
      - universal-based hypersonic missile


      as can be seen from 6 options-5 (!!!) this is an ICBM ... and all with a non-nuclear warhead
  21. Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 5 September 2013 12: 33 New
    +1
    Dear Vasily!
    Idiots are not only enough in Russia, we just have it somehow more convex. In addition, I completely admit a provocative move so that our passionaries are excited from idiotic initiatives.
    And the wiring, to deprive Russia of the last argument, has not been canceled.
    Here they give birth ... hi
    1. postman
      postman 5 September 2013 19: 49 New
      -1
      Quote: Peaceful military
      There are enough idiots not only in Russia

      I agree .... but there they are still under control, more or less
      about "wiring" -mobi, although I doubt it.
      Most likely, we are still waiting for the era of ICBMs that are not equipped with nuclear weapons.
      I will explain:
      - there is no (yet) means of another strike anywhere in the world, almost suddenly (20-30 minutes), after a decision is made, and VERY accurately.
      -Disarmament (NSR) continues and will be (states will have to reduce, but we will have to increase everything according to the agreement), ICBMs are being released, and the life cycle has not yet expired. Why not use it by putting a NON-NUCLEAR ICBM on the database?
      - ICBMs are getting cheaper (production of new ones), cheaper (by orders of magnitude) to strike at (well, let's say Iran), destroying nodal points, than to start an operation like "desert storm", and there are no victims of drugs
      -increasing damage ability of non-nuclear warheads (GATS / GAM, GBU-37, AUP-3 (M), BLU-116B (AUP - Advanced Unitary Penetrator) for example)
      ---- as I understand it from the heap of concepts read, it wins, and most likely it will be implemented as follows: ICBMs deliver combat modules (shock, reconnaissance, etc.) to the upper atmosphere of the attacked country that will fulfill the task assigned to them .
      Fast, relatively cheap and without sacrificing drugs.

      nevertheless, ICBMs with nuclear weapons are a deterrent and it is unlikely to be used (contracts), but the usual ...

      in July 1998, London announced that it did not intend to have more than 200 operational deployed warheads, that is, it actually reduced its maximum operatively deployed potential by more than half.

      The actual number of warheads available to France (France’s nuclear potential today exceeds the British!) Remains a secret. However, Paris is quite capable of competing with the United States and the Russian Federation, if not quantitatively, then certainly qualitatively.

      / the prospect of delivering a high-precision instant non-nuclear strike is very tempting, for France, for Britain



      Ballistic Missile Technology Program Research And Development Announcement, Commerce Business Daily, December 18, 1998.

      WTO Physical Impact Assessments

      Security assessments of the Topol-M PGRK
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 5 September 2013 22: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: Postman
        Most likely, we are still waiting for the era of ICBMs that are not equipped with nuclear weapons. I will explain:

        I suppose we should forgive peaceful students for their "ignorance".
        Quote: Postman
        there is no (yet) means of another strike anywhere in the world, almost suddenly (20-30 min), after the decision is made, and VERY accurately.

        But as for accuracy, without GPS and other additional guidance tools that can be suppressed, I think it will not work. Yes, and what is 2-3 tons of conventional explosives for Trident1 / 2, this is a couple of three KAB-1000, so a mosquito bite and nothing more. Tolley deal R-36 with a cassette warhead, any army will stop the ground! And in the medium-range missile variant, and generally tons of 15-20 will pull. Well, what is not an asymmetric answer, and not an alternative is YaB, but only an augmented opportunity.
        1. postman
          postman 6 September 2013 03: 43 New
          -1
          Quote: SPACE
          I suppose we should forgive peaceful students for their "ignorance

          I don’t understand ... what's the point? or to whom?
          Quote: SPACE
          But as for accuracy, without GPS and other additional guidance tools that can be suppressed, I think it will not work.

          tell me a way ... how to suppress 20-30 GPS satellites in 25000 km orbit?
          well at the same time
          inertial guidance system
          astroinertial navigation
          according to the terrain
          ================
          I can offer other options:
          -by magnetic anomalies (maps)
          -by the thermal image of the attacked object
          - by a beacon, by laser illumination

          ?

          Quote: SPACE
          And what is 2-3 tons of conventional explosives for Trident 1/2,

          1.not "usual"
          2. 1 ton will destroy the nuclear power plant, the uranium enrichment plant, the residence of the presidency, etc.
          Quote: SPACE
          Tolley deal R-36 with a cassette warhead, stop any ground army!

          will not stop, because not intended for this ... sales will not go. these are "city killers"

          Quote: SPACE
          Yes and no alternative is YaB,

          The WTO has reached such a level that the United States will prefer to completely ban nuclear weapons (by hook or by crook)
          1. SPACE
            SPACE 6 September 2013 06: 18 New
            0
            Quote: Postman
            tell me a way ... how to suppress 20-30 GPS satellites in 25000 km orbit?

            In orbit, there is nothing to jam. Communicated with the Head of the Department of Communications and Communications, and the former beginning. The radar, to my question about the impossibility of jamming the GPS signal, they laughed, in their opinion any GPS signal is jammed by all 100%. Did not notice, in the vicinity of objects of special importance GPS does not work.
            Quote: Postman
            inertial guidance system astroinertial navigation over the terrain ================ I can offer other options: -by magnetic anomalies (maps) -by the thermal image of the attacked object-by the beacon, by laser illumination

            Correction according to your options is possible at the stage of operation of the carriers, but after separation of the BB, the methods you specified are not applicable, where you put the electronic and optical devices on a warhead, wrapped in a heat-resistant carbon cover, heated up to a thousand degrees and flying in a plasma cloud. And 150-300 meters of KVO is a chapel for inertial guidance systems, taking into account adjustments, which is no longer claimed to be high-precision. So 1-2 tons of conventional explosives may not get where you need to.
            Quote: Postman
            will not stop, because not intended for this ... sales will not go. these are "city killers"

            It will stop and still stop, it is important to have such a powerful rocket, and to supply it with additional specialization is a matter of technology! You can only imagine, 10 tons or 10 000 pieces of shock kinetic cores weighing 1 kilograms each, flying at a speed of 7 km / s, according to the accumulation of land connections, this is a deadly rain that few will survive.
            Quote: Postman
            The WTO has reached such a level that the United States will prefer to completely ban nuclear weapons (by hook or by crook)

            Well, and what level has the WTO reached? For effective use against the Zulus? But I believe that geopolitically, only nuclear weapons are the only limiting factor. Americans can abandon it, having a powerful economy that allows them to maintain conventional means, which others can not afford. I wonder how they can prohibit having nuclear weapons and how they can force them.
            1. postman
              postman 6 September 2013 18: 45 New
              +1
              infection site ... wrote an answer, add .. "you entered too long a comment."
              Everything is lost...
              Okay short
              Quote: SPACE
              Communicated with the Head of the Department of Communications and Communications, and the former beginning. Radar, to my question about the possibility of jamming the GPS signal

              nonsense, take a pen, draw paper: a satellite of 25000 km, la at an altitude of 5 km, electronic warfare on the ground (HZ where), a ray from electronic warfare and?
              The antenna is the GPS receiver from above, the signal from there, the beam from the EW from below and does not coincide in azimuth.
              Nothing
              Quote: SPACE
              Did not notice, in the vicinity of objects of special importance GPS does not work.

              It works in the Russian Federation, in Europe, in Auto, in iPhone. It was checked personally, even at that object in Len.obl., Where google maps were forced to remove the satellite image.
              GSM DOES NOT WORK (3G It seems, too), in St. Petersburg, at those objects ... you know yourself. I checked it myself
              Quote: SPACE
              wrapped in a heat-resistant carbon cover, heated up to a thousand degrees and flying in a cloud of plasma.


              from a height of 50-70 km you can drop the cover. It all depends on the angle of entry. Buran, Shuttle, Union - excellent communication and telemetry. This height is enough for a lateral maneuver of 300-700km

              Quote: SPACE
              10 pieces of shock kinetic nuclei weighing 000 kilogram each, flying at a speed of 1 km / s, according to the accumulation of land compounds,

              8th Army (USSR) 100-110 km along the front and 4-10 km deep
              100 km x 4 km = 400 sq. Km = 400 000 000 sq.m.
              WHAT IS 10 generators for 000 MILLION SQ. m? = not even
            2. postman
              postman 6 September 2013 18: 49 New
              0
              Quote: SPACE
              Well, and what level has the WTO reached? For effective use against the Zulus?

              for reliable destruction of silos by one or two warheads, accuracy not worse than 1-2 m is necessary. In the existing types of WTOs, such high accuracy is not ensured. Laser-guided UABs are most accurate, as well as UAB and SD with correction on the final section of the trajectory (CVO = 3 m). However, with the improvement of homing heads and the use of more productive computer technology in the WTO target designation systems, in the future it is possible to achieve the required accuracy. Obviously, this will require correction of the warhead in the final section of the trajectory. There are two ways to obtain data for such a correction, and both have significant drawbacks.

              * Use of the homing head (GOS) on the combat element itself
              * Use of inertial navigation system with correction according to the space radio navigation system (SRS) GPS

              WTO accuracy requirements for the destruction of PGRK (Poplar,
              Ash) may be lower than in the case of stationary objects. In particular, the WCMD unit, which is supposed to equip cluster aerial bombs, is capable of delivering UAE with an accuracy of 40 m when used from heights of up to 6-7 km. For the CBU-97 UAB, this accuracy is sufficient for the BLU-108 / B submunition heads to capture the target. The probability of defeating PGRK while ensuring such accuracy is close to unity, since each UAB CBU-97 contains 40 combat elements.

              the Discoverer II spacecraft system under development involves the deployment of 24 low-orbit satellites with SAR meter resolution. According to representatives of the US Department of Defense, this system will allow for almost continuous monitoring of specified areas in real time and provide target designation with an accuracy of 20

              Quote: SPACE
              I wonder how they can prohibit having nuclear weapons and how they can force them.

              Simple: how were gay people "allowed" in France? = Public opinion
              + a number of serious accidents
              + bribery (Shevarnadze EASILY signed off the US 200km economic zone in the Bering Strait)
              Etc