Once again about medium-range missiles

Once again about medium-range missilesRecently, a discussion about medium and shorter-range missiles (“NVO” No. 24, 27, 29) has developed on the “NVO” pages. I would like to tell you in more detail about some aspects of this issue, which are not reflected in the publications.


NUCLEAR PROVOCATION

In the confrontation with the United States, we were not the first to deploy medium-range ballistic missiles near the borders of the other side. In the 1958 – 1961 years, the United States deployed its Thor and Jupiter armored forwarders with nuclear warheads in Turkey, Italy and the UK, reducing flight time to facilities in our country from 30 to 8 – 10 minutes. In the 1962, the USSR responded symmetrically with the deployment of its medium-range ballistic missiles P-12 with nuclear warheads in Cuba. The flight time of Soviet missiles to military facilities and US cities has become exactly the same as American missiles to military facilities and cities of the USSR. Such parity of the USA did not suit, and they initiated the Caribbean crisis. The crisis was resolved by the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba, followed by the withdrawal of American missiles from Europe. Thus, the threat that arose after the first deployment of American medium-range ballistic missiles in Europe was eliminated.

After the Caribbean crisis, the United States for many years received a kind of "vaccination" from the deployment of medium-range nuclear missiles (RSD) in Europe threatening the USSR. However, in the 1979 year, the so-called “double decision” of NATO was adopted, providing for the deployment of medium-range nuclear missiles from 1983 in Western Europe and negotiations with the USSR on arms limitation. In making this decision, the Americans hoped that the Soviet leadership, remembering the 1962 crisis of the year, would no longer be able to deploy their medium-range missiles in Cuba as a response, and if they tried, the United States would not allow it now.

It was planned to deploy X-NUMX ballistic missiles "Pershing-108" and 2 ground-based cruise missiles (RNRs) BGM-464G. Officially, the deployment of new missiles in Europe was justified by the need to eliminate the imbalance arising in connection with the deployment of the USSR by the new Pioneer MRBD. These missiles replaced the outdated Soviet medium-range missiles P-109 and P-12. At the same time, the number of deployed medium-range missiles decreased, although the number of deployed warheads increased, since the Pioneers were equipped with a divided head part (MFS) with three warheads.

According to the number of delivery vehicles weapons medium range (RSD, aviation, including deck) NATO in 1979 surpassed the USSR almost twice (1800: 1000). The USA had an advantage over the USSR in the number of warheads on strategic carriers (ICBMs, SLBMs, heavy bombers) - 11: 000. At the same time, the USSR had more medium-range missiles. Great Britain and France had 7000, and the USSR - about 178, of which about 600 were located in the Asian part of the country. If the Soviet Pioneer RSD did not threaten the territory of the USA in any way, the American Pershing-100 missiles, possessing high firing accuracy (KVO - 2–35 m) and a penetrating warhead, created the threat of a “decapitating” nuclear strike at command posts of higher links combat control of strategic nuclear forces and government.

In the 1980 year at the talks on the limitation of nuclear weapons in Europe, the Soviet side proposed to introduce a moratorium on the deployment in Europe of NATO and the USSR medium-range missile and nuclear weapons, that is, to freeze in quantitative and qualitative terms the existing level of such facilities based in the area.

In 1981, the USSR put forward a proposal to reduce nuclear weapons of medium range, based in Europe, including aircraft carrying nuclear weapons, by a factor of three to the level of 300 units for each side.
In December, 1982, the Soviet side proposed to establish equality in both the number of RSDs in Europe and the number of aircraft - carriers of medium range. At the same time, the USSR should have had as many missiles as England and France had.

In October, the USSR's 1983 of the Year expressed its readiness to have no more than Pioner 140 missiles in Europe, that is, less than there were RSDs in France and Great Britain. At the same time, the United States should have refused to place its RSD in Europe. The proposal provided equal ceilings for the parties - medium-range carriers. The United States did not accept any of these proposals.

ZERO OPTION

In 1981, Reagan proposed the so-called zero option, which provided for the United States to abandon the deployment of Pershing-2 missiles and cruise missiles in Western Europe in exchange for eliminating all Soviet medium-range missiles in both the European and Asian parts of the country. Thus, it was proposed to eliminate the really deployed grouping of more 600 missiles in exchange for the United States abandoning the plan to deploy missiles that were still under development.

In March 1983, Reagan announced his readiness to go for an intermediate option, which provided for an equal number of RSD for the USSR and the USA. At the same time, missiles of France and Great Britain, as well as aviation, were not covered by the proposed agreement. In November, the US 1983 proposed to establish equal ceilings for the number of RSN warheads in the number of 420 units. None of the American options, excluding zero, did not provide for the United States to abandon the deployment of new missiles in Europe. At the end of 1983, the United States began deploying new medium-range missiles in Europe.

It was necessary to force the United States to withdraw its RSD from Europe. In response, 24 of November 1983 of the Year of the USSR announced the lifting of the moratorium on the deployment of its medium-range missiles in the European part of the country, the deployment of operational-tactical enhanced-range missiles (Temp-S) in the territory of Czechoslovakia and the GDR which, by their characteristics, will be adequate to the threat posed to the USSR and its allies by American missiles in Europe.

The following action plan was developed. We decided to create a new mobile ground speed missile complex. The “Speed” missiles planned to deploy in the territory of the GDR and Czechoslovakia and aim them at the locations of the Pershing-2 missiles, cruise missiles and other NATO objects, creating the threat of their lightning destruction. In addition, it was envisaged to place on the Chukotka BRSD "Pioneer". The zone of their operation would cover the whole of Alaska and the north-western part of Canada. When altering the head of the rocket and placing on it one light warhead instead of three in the zone of action of the Pioneer missiles, a significant part of the US territory appeared. Under the threat of lightning destruction, the radar post Clear system of the missile attack warning system (SPRN) "Bimyus" in Alaska, radar SPRN "Cobra Dane" on the island of Shemiya and "Parks" in North Dakota.

Naturally, such steps should have led to an international crisis. It was supposed that a way out of it would be the removal of American medium-range missiles from Europe in exchange for the withdrawal of Soviet Speed ​​missiles from Czechoslovakia and the GDR and Pioneer missiles from Chukotka. At the same time, the group of more than 400 Pioneer missiles, which would have been based on their previous locations, was fully preserved. However, Yury Andropov, Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee, who actively supported this plan, and Dmitry Ustinov, Minister of Defense, died in the 1984 year. Under Chernenko, work on the “Speed” rocket continued.

In the spring of 1985, Gorbachev came to power, and the approach to solving the problem of American advanced-base missiles changed dramatically.

In April, the USSR's 1985, unilaterally, suspended the deployment of its missiles and other retaliatory measures in Europe, which it began after the deployment of forward-mounted US-based RSDs began. The plan developed by Andropov and Ustinov was “buried”. The development of the “Speed” missile, the flight tests of which have already been launched, was stopped. At the talks on medium-range missiles, Gorbachev made all new unjustified concessions, and also put forward proposals that led to the unilateral disarmament of the USSR.

In October 1986, at a meeting of Gorbachev with Reagan in Reykjavik, the Soviet side refused to link the issue of reducing RSD with missiles of this class of Great Britain and France and removed the earlier request for the assignment of Western RSD to the category of strategic offensive arms. At the same time, it was proposed to start negotiations on RSD, based in the Asian part of the USSR, and to “freeze” missiles with a range of less than 1000 km.

In November, the 1986 of the year at the negotiations in Geneva, the Soviet delegation put forward a proposal to eliminate the Soviet and American RSM in Europe while maintaining in the Asian part of the USSR and in the US on 100 warheads on such missiles. At the same time, the USSR would have 33 missiles “Pioneer” with a MSSV in the Asian part of the country, and the USA would have 100 single Pershing-2 monoblock missiles in its territory. The Soviet side proposed to establish equal levels of operational-tactical missiles of the USSR and the USA, provided that there are neither Soviet nor American such missiles in Europe. At the same time, the USSR refused to record the missiles of Great Britain and France, postponing the decision on aircraft medium-range missile delivery systems.

At a meeting with Gorbachev in Moscow in April 1987, US Secretary of State Schulz said that they were prepared to stick to the option discussed at the Geneva talks to leave 100 warheads on the RSD based in the US and the European part of the USSR, eliminating missiles of this class from both sides in Europe. However, Gorbachev proposed a variant of “double global zero”, which provided for the elimination not only of all American and Soviet medium-range missiles (over 1000 to 5500 km), but also of all short-range missiles (from 500 to 1000 km). This option was legally enshrined in the 1987 year concluded by the Permanent Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles.

WHOM IS IT FAVORABLE

If the first deployment of US medium-range missiles in Europe was eliminated on a parity basis - the USSR and the USA removed their advanced-based missiles located near the borders of the other side, then the second elimination of missiles as parity is difficult to call. The United States eliminated missiles provocatively located outside its territory, near our borders. And the USSR eliminated missiles located on its own territory, including missiles based in the Asian part of the country. At the same time, the USSR, in the process of implementing the INF Treaty, had to eliminate two times more missiles than the United States (1846: 846), and almost three times more launchers (825: 289). Our eliminated missiles could carry almost four times more nuclear warheads than the US (3154: 846).

The only type of missiles that the United States destroyed under the INF Treaty is greater than the USSR, it is the KRNB (443: 80). However, this exchange was of no fundamental importance either to us or to the United States. The United States had a large grouping of sea (Tomahawk) and airborne (ALCM-B) cruise missiles with similar TTX. The total number of sea-based and air-launched cruise missiles was planned to be brought to 1994 in the year to thousand units. So, the deployment of land-based CDs, in contrast to the Pershing-7 missiles, did not create any fundamentally new threat to the USSR.


A mobile ground-based missile system with a solid-fuel two-stage ballistic medium-range missile RSD-10 “Pioneer” (in the West known as “Saber”) can now be seen only in the museum.


In other classes of the USSR destroyed much more missiles than the United States. In the class of medium-range missiles, if we ignore our outdated P-12 and P-14 missiles, we gave 2 Pioner three-block missiles to a single Pershing-2,8 rocket. The Temp-S group of short-range missiles (718 missiles, 135 launchers) was completely eliminated, having received practically nothing in return! The US missiles of this class in combat were no longer. The obsolete Pershing-1А missiles (170 units) were withdrawn from service, stockpiled, and only one non-deployed launcher remained to them.

In addition, having received nothing in return from the United States, the 239 grouping of the latest Oka ballistic missiles was eliminated. The maximum range of the Oka missile (400 km) did not fall within the range of the missile range (500 – 5500 km) covered by the Treaty. However, Gorbachev went to the inclusion of this rocket in the composition subject to liquidation under the INF Treaty. At the same time, the United States rejected the Soviet proposal to reduce in the Treaty the lower limit of the range of flights of the missiles being eliminated to 400 km. Thus, the United States not only achieved the elimination of the Oka missiles, but also retained for itself the ability to manufacture, test and deploy a developed ballistic missile of the same class, Lance 2, which had an 450 – 470 km range.

As a result, after the liquidation of the Oka missiles in accordance with the INF Treaty, the USSR could get deployed missiles of the same class Lance-2 near its borders. It would be a double loss. However, the need for the Lance-2 rocket disappeared due to the dramatic changes in the military-strategic situation in the world after the collapse of the USSR and the abolition of the Warsaw Pact. Schultz called the decision regarding the Oka a “divine gift” from Gorbachev. He also said that "this step was so one-sidedly beneficial for the West that he was not sure whether the Soviet leaders could have done this if there were democratic legislative bodies in Moscow."

NEW REALITY

For more than two decades, our country has managed without medium-range and shorter ground-based ballistic missiles. Since then, the situation has changed significantly, and already six countries have medium-range ground-based missiles. Among them, China, Iran, North Korea, India, Israel, Pakistan.

In the face of increasing threats at medium-range strategic stability can be achieved in various ways. One of them is the improvement of strategic nuclear forces so that they provide nuclear deterrence in all operational areas without medium-range missiles. The advantage of this path is the reduction of the range of missiles in production and service. However, the diversion of part of the ICBM to solving combat missions at medium range reduces the potential for retaliatory strike by strategic nuclear forces at enemy targets located at intercontinental ranges. It cannot be ruled out that in the conditions of the deployment of the US global missile defense system and the growth of threats in the medium range, the potential of the strategic nuclear forces will be insufficient for nuclear deterrence in all strategic areas.

Another way is withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the deployment of medium-range and shorter ground-based missiles. Academician Alexei Arbatov’s article “Measure seven times” (“NVO” No. 27 from 02.08.13) set forth convincing arguments showing the inexpediency of such a step for Russia. Russia's withdrawal from the INF Treaty will be an “indulgence” for the US to deploy new medium-range missiles in Europe in addition to missile defense missiles already deployed there. Of course, they can deploy such missiles, having come out of this treaty first, as they came out of the indefinite ABM Treaty in 2002.

THIRD WAY

In addition to the two options outlined for solving the problem of nuclear deterrence, there is another one - to deploy medium-range or sea-based missiles that are not covered by the INF Treaty. However, in accordance with the current START Treaty, sea-based medium-range ballistic missiles deployed on submarines will be counted on a par with intercontinental long-range submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Deployment of medium-range SLBMs by reducing the number of SLBMs of intercontinental range will reduce the potential for retaliatory strike by the SNF in the North American direction, which is unacceptable.

The air-based version of the medium range BR to 5 December 2009 was subject to the prohibition of the START-1 Treaty. This treaty prohibited the production, flight tests and deployment of air-to-surface ballistic missiles (BRVZ) with a range of over 600 km. The current START Treaty does not prohibit the testing and deployment of air-to-surface ballistic missiles. In it, missiles of this class in nuclear equipment are identified as one of the types of nuclear weapons of heavy bomber.

It is advisable to consider airplanes that are not considered to be heavy bombers by the current START Treaty as possible carriers of medium range BR. One of these aircraft is the Tu-22М3 bomber. In 1990-ies, Tupolev OJSC and Raduga GosMKB worked out using the modernized Tu-22М3 bomber as a launching platform for the Skif launch vehicle designed for launching spacecraft into orbit. The three-stage Skif liquid launch vehicle was supposed to be suspended under the bomber's fuselage. The launch mass of the rocket was 17 tons. The launch was envisaged at an altitude of 12 km with an airplane speed of 1800 km / h.

The studies carried out in 70 – 80-ies showed the possibility of creating small-sized mono-block ground-based ICBMs with 11 – 15 tons of starting mass. In the middle of 70-ies, in the framework of R & D “Chain”, the design bureau Arsenal named after him. Mv Frunze developed a mobile combat missile system of intercontinental range. The launch mass of a monoblock solid-fuel MBR was 13,5 t, length - 11,4 m, case diameter - 1,28 m. In 80-e - the beginning of 90-s, the Moscow Thermal Engineering Institute developed the mobile ground rocket complex "Courier" with a small-sized solid-fuel monoblock MBR. This missile had a launch mass of about 15 t, length - 11,2 m, case diameter - 1,36 m. The ground test of the rocket was fully completed, however, in accordance with the agreement between the leaders of the USSR and the USA, the development of the “Courier” ICBM and the Midgetman American compact ICBM was discontinued in October 1991 of the year. An even smaller starting mass and dimensions were developed by the Yuzhnoye design bureau of the liquid-powered MBR Kopye-R missile complex of a mobile ground base. In 1985, the outline of this complex was released. The launch mass of the Kopye-R rocket was 10,9 t, length - 12,9 m, and case diameter - 1,15 m.

Ballistic medium-range air-launched missiles (up to 5500 km) due to the use of carrier height and speed at the start, as well as because of the smaller range compared to the ICBM, they will have a starting mass of about 7 – 8 t. Considering the results of the Skif complex As a carrier of such missiles, it is possible to use a modernized Tu-22М3 bomber. In accordance with the provisions of the START Treaty concluded in 2010, the Tu-22М3 aircraft is not a heavy bomber. According to the Protocol to the START Treaty, “the term“ heavy bomber ”means a bomber of one type or another, one of whose bombers meets any of the following criteria: a) its range is more than 8000 km or b) it is equipped for nuclear-powered cruise missiles based long-range ".

The Tu-22М3 bomber does not meet any of the above criteria. Of the aircraft in service with Russia, only the Tu-95MS and Tu-160 are classified as heavy bombers under the current START Treaty. In accordance with the Protocol to the START Treaty, the term “heavy bomber equipped for nuclear weapons” means a heavy bomber equipped for long-range nuclear ALCM, air-to-surface nuclear missiles or nuclear bombs. Since the Tu-22М3 aircraft is not a heavy bomber, when armed with air-to-surface ballistic missiles it will not be considered a heavy bomber equipped for nuclear weapons. At the same time, the START Treaty does not impose restrictions on the number of deployed and non-deployed bombers that are not heavy bombers. Settlement of warheads by contract is provided only for deployed heavy bombers. Thus, the Tu-22М3 bombers and the warheads of the BR deployed on them will not be counted in the total number of warheads, as well as deployed and non-deployed carriers limited by the START Treaty.

Another possible carrier of medium-range BRs can be the MiG-31. In 80-s, on the basis of this fighter, the Kontakt antisatellite aviation missile system was developed. The complex included the carrier aircraft MiG-31D (developed by the Mikoyan Design Bureau) and the 79М6 Kontakt missile (developed by the Fakel Design Bureau). By the beginning of the 90-i were completed flight tests of the aircraft carrier. In view of the termination of funding, the complex was discontinued.

In 90-s, the Mikoyan Design Bureau and the Vympel Design Bureau, based on the MiG-31 fighter, developed a spacecraft launch system with a RN-S rocket. At the same time, a group of scientists from the Moscow Aviation Institute, with the support of specialists from the Mikoyan Design Bureau, considered the option of using the MiG-31 carrier aircraft for air launch of the Mikron rocket. The rocket, which had a launch mass of 7 T, length 7,25 m, width with rudders 3,7 m., Was supposed to put into orbit 250 – 300 km in height, 150 – 200 kg payloads.

From 2005 to 2007, the Ishim missile system, designed for launching payloads into space, was developed on the basis of the MiG-31D fighter. The lead developer of the aircraft carrier was RSK MiG, and the rockets the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering. The carrier MiG-31I was to accommodate a three-stage rocket that had a launch mass of 10,3 t, a length of 10,76 m and a body diameter of 1,34 m.

Taking into account the studies on the Ishim complex, it is possible to use the upgraded MiG-31 aircraft as a medium-range carrier with a launch mass of up to 10 tons. The missile complex with medium-range radar missiles will have a high level of survival due to the high speed of the aircraft’s departure about rocket attack. A MiG-31 fighter equipped with a medium-range BR will not meet any of the criteria for a heavy bomber, and accordingly the aircraft and the BR and their warheads placed on it will not be subject to quantitative restrictions on the current START Treaty.

The missile system with a medium-range airborne missile defense can be used to solve the problem of nuclear deterrence in the European, Eastern and Southern strategic areas without the air carrier leaving the country’s airspace. Due to the flight range of the aircraft carrier, such a complex can carry out nuclear deterrence simultaneously on several strategic directions. Missile systems with a medium-range ground-based BR do not possess such capabilities. A medium-range aviation BR can be unified with missiles designed for the operational withdrawal of spacecraft and the interception of satellites. One of the options to reduce costs and shorten the development time of a medium-range missile system is to create a BR using elements of the existing Iskander-M operational tactical ballistic missile.

Thus, at the present time there is a technical possibility to create and deploy air-based medium-range ballistic missiles outside the prohibitions and quantitative restrictions of the current contracts for INF and START. The feasibility of implementing this new direction of improving nuclear forces should be determined as a result of a comparative military-economic assessment with other options for maintaining strategic equilibrium.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 16 September 2013 12: 51 New
    • 18
    • 0
    +18
    The news was that the US is starting to update nuclear weapons in Europe (starting with Belgium). How on time, by the way.
    My opinion. Russia should immediately stop the idiocy of a hunchback - the unilateral destruction of its own medium-range missiles and begin production and deployment of medium-range missile systems on the database. And to decide on their placement in Belarus.
    As V. Zhirinovsky shouted: "SIGNIFICANTLY!"
    Have a nice week! And in general, all the best, friends! smile hi
    1. Max otto 16 September 2013 13: 46 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Peaceful military
      ... And to decide on their placement in Belarus.
      As V. Zhirinovsky shouted: "SIGNIFICANTLY!"
      Have a nice week! And in general, all the best, friends! smile hi

      Belarus declared itself "a state free of nuclear weapons." This is enshrined in international agreements, so the deployment of missiles with nuclear warheads in Belarus is impossible.
      1. Peaceful military
        Peaceful military 16 September 2013 14: 51 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        deployment of missiles with nuclear warheads in Belarus is impossible.

        Alexey, read carefully. I know very well about the status of Belarus and therefore said that it was up to the issue of placement to be decided, not placed. And in the light of what is happening, the question can be resolved, as in the case of nuclear weapons in nuclear-free Europe, etc.
        1. Max otto 16 September 2013 16: 25 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Yes, there is nothing special to decide, the territory of Belarus in the strategic plan is nothing at all. You don’t even have to arrange an international meeting about this (and the wave will be awesome, and it’s not very easy for us anyway). It’s much more profitable to keep Russian air bases and air defense (which actually happens), and missiles are quietly deployed in the Smolensk and Pskov regions without pain, no worse.
          1. Peaceful military
            Peaceful military 16 September 2013 22: 07 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Yes, there is nothing special to decide, the territory of Belarus in the strategic plan is nothing.

            Yes and no. Recall at least how much and why it was located there, as the Strategic Missile Forces, as well as everything else, while having even more in Ukraine, a buffer in the form of the Central Military Forces, the North-Eastern Military Guards, the South-Eastern Troops, the Baltic states. There is a point in this.
            BUT!
            Expediency is another matter in the light of the current state of both interstate Russia-Belarus-Ukraine (yes, yes, Ukraine) and international relations. As well as the state and level of development of weapons ...
            It seems he got excited, with a "cavalry" wish to make a swoop through Belarus. smile
            You are right. soldier
    2. astra 16 September 2013 14: 12 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Another possible medium-range carrier BR can be a MiG-31.

      It would be good if they decided to resume production of the MIG-31, taking into account modernization. I read that we have a supply of engines from Soviet times to the MIG-31 for the construction of more than 200 aircraft. I believe that, along with the aircraft of the SU family, the MiG-31 high-altitude fighter-interceptor is required need to be produced in large quantities. More details: http://topwar.ru/27689-mig-31-realnost-i-perspektivy.html
      1. IS-80 16 September 2013 18: 38 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: astra
        Another possible medium-range carrier BR can be a MiG-31.

        It would be good if they decided to resume production of the MIG-31, taking into account modernization. I read that we have a supply of engines from Soviet times to the MIG-31 for the construction of more than 200 aircraft. I believe that, along with the aircraft of the SU family, the MiG-31 high-altitude fighter-interceptor is required need to be produced in large quantities. More details: http://topwar.ru/27689-mig-31-realnost-i-perspektivy.html


        As for the MIG-31, as far as I remember, there were articles that they were going to put them in order and modernize. But the construction of new ones, it seems, was out of the question, as far as I understood this temporary solution until they bring to mind the PAK FA. And we were talking about MIG-31 when suddenly the deputies found out that in the north our border is not covered, and it frightened them so much that they remembered the MIG-31. True interesting question why they had not bothered before?
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 16 September 2013 18: 43 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          The rebirth of the MiG-31: deputies “for”, military “against”
          1. Peaceful military
            Peaceful military 16 September 2013 22: 15 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            the birth of the MiG-31: deputies “for”, military “against”

            Hi Sanya!
            Do you at least enlighten us, amateurs, about the MIG-31, if you really learned something new (sniffed out) about this unique interceptor as a medium-range carrier.
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 16 September 2013 22: 20 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              The carrier and the rocket are located in Kazakhstan at the base in Sary Shagan. The experimental MiG-31D (“product 07”) was intended to launch an interceptor missile for space objects and to some extent was an analogue of the American anti-satellite system based on the F-15. In 1987-89, OKB im. Mikoyan built 2 prototypes (the sides “071” and “072” are blue). The MiG-31D differed from the base machine, first of all, in that it removed the entire old weapon system, part of the equipment, and eliminated niches for R-33 missiles. Equipment was installed that ensured the implementation of a complex flight path of the carrier aircraft to bring the inertial system of the launched ballistic object to the desired position, automatic course correction according to the commands of the central control point, and also the implementation of a “slide” with maintaining certain parameters of height, speed, and angle of inclination of the trajectory, geographical coordinates, etc. The influx of the wing had the same shape as on the MiG-31M. At the wingtips installed vertical "flippers" to increase the directional stability with a suspended anti-satellite missile. It was developed by Vympel Design Bureau, and the MiG-31D weapon system in the Design Bureau named after Mikoyan was engaged in the team of V.M. Polyak.

              The first flight on the MiG-31D was performed by the honored test pilot of the USSR A.G. Fastovets, whose career was coming to an end. For health reasons, he was allowed to fly only on dual-control aircraft, which the MiG-31D was not originally supposed to. However, the chief pilot of the Mikoyan firm V.E.Menitsky believed that the first-class pilot - Fastovets should fly a difficult-to-fly machine into the air, as a result of which they decided to install a control handle in the rear cockpit in order to formally make the MiG-31D a dual-control aircraft.

              For several years, both machines were tested by pilots of the OKB in Zhukovsky (except Fastovets, Kvochur and Aubakirov flew on the MiG-31D), and most of the flights were carried out on a second plane. In 1987-92 More than 100 anti-satellite missile launches were carried out at the Sary-Shagan training ground in Kazakhstan from aircraft manned by Fastovets and Aubakirov. They fully confirmed the readiness of the complex for adoption. However, due to the lack of funding for work on the MiG-31D "product 07" was suspended.

              It is known that at least one MiG-31D remained on the territory of the test site in Kazakhstan. The oblivion of the MiG-31D (“Product 07”) lasted almost ten years, until finally they were not in demand - already as part of the purely civil, commercial project “Ishim”.
              1. Peaceful military
                Peaceful military 16 September 2013 23: 07 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Sanya, it's all about interception, which is understandable, but where about the platform for launching RSD?
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 16 September 2013 23: 18 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Andryukh, what do you think, which neck is on this project, here is information for consideration.
                  1. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 16 September 2013 23: 24 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    The output object is placed under the fuselage on the suspension unit. Having reached the launch zone, the MiG-31 picks up speed of about 2500 km / h (three times more than the An-225, and twice as much as the Tu-160), rises by about 20 thousand meters, goes on a cabriolet and separates the rocket plane or launch vehicle, in which after 6 s the onboard engine is switched on. Specialists of the Experimental Engineering Plant named after V.M. Myasishchev, Design Bureau named after A.I. Mikoyan, TsAGI named after N.E. Zhukovsky, Institute of Aviation Medicine and Research Institute of Parachuting took part in this project. Center M.V. Keldysh developed hybrid engines with a controlled thrust vector that provide the possibility of multiple starting. Their use in conjunction with an air start will reduce the size of the apparatus by 2,5 times and three times - the cost of removing a kilogram of payload.
                    The ARS multipurpose subcosmic rocket plane (Aerospace rally) was developed taking into account the experience of creating the Bor orbital systems (flying prototype Spirals) and the Japanese project Hope. This is a tailless tail with a small elongation wing of large variable sweep with keel washers at the ends, take-off weight of 1700 kg - of which 500 kg of fuel and 350 kg of payload. In front of the pressurized cockpit is the seat of the pilot-cosmonaut, followed by the navigator and flight engineer or tourist astronauts. There are two-position, anti-overload chairs, a life support system, special attention is paid to safety in non-standard situations.
                    In a 3-minute flight, the crew goes through all stages of space travel. After separation from the MiG-31, the rocket plane accelerates by its own engine to 1200 m / s, rises to 130 km, enters the atmosphere, undergoes aerodynamic heating and overloads of up to 6 units, goes into planning mode and makes an airplane landing at an airfield or lands under a parachute wing. The rocket can be used to train astronauts, study processes in the upper atmosphere. The pilot selects climb and approach modes, but the flight can be provided both remotely by the pilot of the carrier aircraft and the ground tracking and control service.
                    Training flights to heights of up to 40 km are also expected without the inclusion of a power plant for the psychological training of astronauts.
                    In addition, a rocket plane can usher in a new, cosmic variety of aviation sport. Pilots will be able to compete on it at maximum speed, accuracy of reaching a designated place, master flying instrumentation, performing aerobatics, maneuvering with a parachute wing. Rocket Launch Resource - 100 Launches
                    The second application of the MiG-31 is the Mikron small launch vehicle, designed to launch a payload of 250-300 kg into orbits with a height of 150-200 km. "Micron" is made in a modular scheme in two- and three-stage versions
                    After separating from the MiG-31 and running out of fuel, the first stage should move away from the unit and, at the command of the carrier, lower to the right place for reuse. This system is not only more economical than the existing ones, but also allows you to perform more diverse tasks. For example, to quickly launch new artificial satellites into orbits to replace spent resources or failed ones. Or, if necessary, launch a constellation of similar orbital objects
                    Using the unique capabilities of the MiG-31 as a rocket-launch vehicle or micro-rocket carrier opens up a non-standard way for Russia in the world space system, focusing on small, micro- and nanosatellites and sub-space manned winged systems.
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 16 September 2013 23: 30 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Suborbital ship "Cosmopolis-XXI"
                      Another project in the framework of the X-Price contest was developed in the Joint-Stock Company Suborbital Corporation with the participation of the Myasishchev Experimental Engineering Plant.
                      The launch of the Cosmopolis-XXI missile module with the passenger capsule is carried out from the carrier aircraft during the dynamic slide maneuver at heights of 17 to 20 kilometers. The high-altitude aircraft M-55 (Geophysics) developed by the Myasishchev plant is used as a carrier aircraft. Its flight characteristics are as follows: maximum speed - 2650 km / h, practical ceiling - 22 kilometers, maximum range - 35004000 kilometers. The Cosmopolis-XXI missile module is made in the form of a cylindrical object with small folding aerodynamic surfaces and consists of a salvageable three-seater passenger capsule, an engine block, a compartment of equipment with control systems, life support and rescue. The missile module is mounted on a high-altitude carrier aircraft Geophysics at special attachment points equipped with controlled mechanical locks.
                      Between the carrier aircraft and the rocket module, electrical communication is carried out using a cable with a quick disconnect electrical connector. The carrier aircraft is equipped with monitoring and recording equipment and a system for testing the health of the rocket module.
                    2. Peaceful military
                      Peaceful military 16 September 2013 23: 34 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Andryukh, what do you think, which neck is on this project, here is information for consideration.

                      "He broke all the brains into pieces, all the convolutions weaved ..."
                      Thanks, I'll try to figure it out. smile
                      1. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 16 September 2013 23: 42 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Here's another "brain grinder" laughing
                      2. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 16 September 2013 23: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        ..........................
  2. AVV
    AVV 16 September 2013 17: 14 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Gorbachev, Judah of the USSR! Sold everything that is possible! It is possible to place high-precision systems in Belarus !!! High-precision RSD! And medium-range RSD missiles or aircraft carrier RSDs with nuclear warheads can be placed in Russia! In cases of missiles, you will have to withdraw from the agreement on RSDs! Well, nothing, the Americans have withdrawn from the ABM Treaty !!!
  3. zennon 16 September 2013 22: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    As V. Zhirinovsky shouted: "SIGNIFICANTLY!"

    I agree with you in everything except the passage above. Zhirinovsky never “SIGNIFICANTLY” said. Just like Sherlock Holmes never (according to the book), he never said “ELEMENTARY WATSON” in any story. hi
  • darksoul 16 September 2013 12: 52 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    And there are all prerequisites for this, we have every right to deploy medium-range missiles by building up the US anti-missile defense system, the appearance of missiles of a similar class among the other players mentioned above, and most importantly, the country has its own political will and position ... They repulsed Abkhazia, Syria is very competently help, started to think what to do with the Arctic
    1. Nitup
      Nitup 16 September 2013 15: 23 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: darksoul
      And there are all prerequisites for this, we have every right to deploy medium-range missiles by building up the US anti-missile defense system, the appearance of missiles of a similar class among the other players mentioned above, and most importantly, the country has its own political will and position ... They repulsed Abkhazia, Syria is very competently help, started to think what to do with the Arctic

      In addition, who can guarantee that instead of anti-aircraft missiles at American missile defense facilities there are no ballistic missiles at our borders? Moreover, they have already conducted tests of RSD - Hera rocket, but they used it as a target for their missile defense and you will not formally dig into them, but the fact is that they experience RSD.
      What we see recently from our side. These are statements by Putin and Ivanov that concluding an agreement on RSMB is a controversial event, and maybe it would be time for us to withdraw from the agreement on INF. In addition, for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the Minsk plant manufactured a tractor, just suitable for accommodating medium-range missiles. The chassis has 6 axles as well as the chassis of the Soviet medium-range Pioneer complex. And recently a test launch of a new missile (allegedly ICBM) was conducted. But it was carried out from the Kapustin Yar training ground at the Balkhash training ground, i.e. at a distance of 2-2,5 tons km. Launches are ICBMs usually carried out from Plesetsk. All this suggests that: either we are creating RSD under the guise of ICBMs, or we will soon withdraw from the INF Treaty. The second option is preferable for us, since if you create an RSD under the guise of ICBMs, then these RSDs will need to be included in the list of permitted ICBMs under the START treaty.
      .
  • kotvov 16 September 2013 12: 53 New
    • 16
    • 0
    +16
    superfluous confirmation-tagged traitor.
    1. skeptic 16 September 2013 14: 40 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: kotvov
      superfluous confirmation-tagged traitor.


      Schultz called the decision regarding the Oka a “divine gift” from Gorbachev. He also said that "this step was so one-sidedly beneficial for the West that he was not sure if the Soviet leaders would be able to do this if there were democratic legislative bodies in Moscow."

      Well, what else can be added to the conviction?
      1. sergey261180
        sergey261180 16 September 2013 17: 47 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: skeptic
        Well, what else can be added to the conviction?

        9 grams of lead to America’s card on his head!
  • TS3sta3 16 September 2013 12: 56 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    In the USA, sequestration of the budget, they do not even have money to support the FBI. where will they get the money for the deployment of medium and short range br? if they cut spending on domestic politics, but then withdrawing from the treaty is all the more profitable: there will be no hell of a nuclear war, and the arms race, this time, will finish the United States. for nat security this contract is no longer beneficial. IMHO.
    1. IRBIS 16 September 2013 13: 24 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: TS3sta3
      where will they get the money for the deployment of medium and short range br?

      There is no doubt that they will have enough money for this. I think that a couple of cars is enough ...
    2. skeptic 16 September 2013 14: 44 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: TS3sta3
      In the USA, sequestration of the budget, they do not even have money to support the FBI. where will they get the money for the deployment of medium and short range br?


      A little clarification. In Russia, the money supply is tied to the amount of gold in the capsule, and in the United States - to the amount of paper and printing ink.
  • Tarpon 16 September 2013 12: 58 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    In my opinion, the emphasis must be placed on hypersonic long-range cruise missiles with the possibility of equipping them with nuclear warheads. Indeed, restrictions do not apply to the Kyrgyz Republic.
    Such missiles, sea, air and ground-based would significantly enhance the attacking potential of Russia.
  • GDP
    GDP 16 September 2013 13: 07 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    It is simply amazing how many nasty things and how many irreparable things could be done for our country by one single person who broke into power ... It’s even hard to find another such pest in the entire thousand-year history of Russia / Russia ... But all that the author listed in his article is a trifle compared to other acts of this "father of Soviet democracy." The collapse of the USSR, the loss of all the territories that had been gathered for centuries by the blood of our people and the disenfranchised position of millions of our citizens who found themselves abroad overnight ...
    The result of his reign is a country ruined into parts. Wrapped, humiliated, with broken teeth and broken claws - the great Colossus.
    Probably something similar felt Gersmania after the First World War. How much time has passed between the first and second world war?
    1. Peaceful military
      Peaceful military 16 September 2013 13: 45 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      It is simply amazing how many nasty things and how many irreparable things could be done for our country by a single person who broke into power ...

      No, Vladimir, not one. It was a whole "landing" of party-nomenclature workers and compradors who could appear due to the Khrushchev's "thaw" (like on the streets, during the thaw, what was the first to appear from under the melting snow?).
      Well, then, in Brezhnev’s stagnation, all this with the connivance of the rapidly aging and equally rapidly losing touch with the reality of the “leaders”, all this scum bloomed and bred.
      We must pay tribute to the Anglo-Saxons. Brilliantly they turned everything.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. bulvas 16 September 2013 13: 56 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: GDP
      It’s even hard to find another such pest in the entire thousand-year history of Russia / Russia ...


      Is that Vladimir Ulyanov
      He also did a lot of harm ...
      1. aepocmam
        aepocmam 16 September 2013 16: 05 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Then another pest was approaching, cleaner than the previous ones, it was drawn - Bulk. Our home-grown ones were still without education, and the State Department trained this at Yale University. If he breaks into power, I think he will do this to us (or heap, I don’t know how it will be more accurate) that an angel labeled will appear.
    4. zennon 16 September 2013 23: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It’s even hard to find another such pest in the entire thousand-year history of Russia / Russia ...

      But the Vedmedev disagrees with you! It is he who gives him the order. request
  • pensioner 16 September 2013 13: 09 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    the group of 239 Oka ballistic missiles was eliminated. The maximum flight range of the Oka missile (400 km) did not fall within the range of missile ranges (500–5500 km) covered by the Treaty.

    How our officers at EVAKU blamed Gorbachev for the Oka! Perhaps it was from them then that I heard the word TRIEST with reference to the former Secretary General.
  • Ev58
    Ev58 16 September 2013 13: 16 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The thought expressed about the deep modernization of the Tu-22M3 in the current situation is not new, but relevant, and, upon careful consideration, is of serious importance in the current situation. As a specialist in aviation instrumentation, I can only note that not today the types of aircraft indicated above require a deep modernization of the morally and physically outdated fleet of onboard equipment.
  • rugor 16 September 2013 13: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Russia should immediately stop the idiocy of a hunchback - the unilateral destruction of its own medium-range missiles and begin production and deployment of medium-range missile systems on the database. And to decide on their placement in Belarus.


    Let us this time without Belarus. Nothing personal, just business.
  • Gennady1973
    Gennady1973 16 September 2013 13: 37 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Personally, my opinion is this: you don’t have to look around and look, you can or cannot! You need to do what we consider necessary for our security, do we need such missiles? It means to manufacture and put into service! So that the same Denmark would not hesitate to "rake in full if that ... "I don’t say anything about America. What kind of agreement? Do you adhere to them? There was also a pact with Hitler. How many lives and sorrows cost us faith in honesty! Don’t be afraid of anyone, let them blather" the dog barks the caravan goes "amers un on one place seen, a veto is not a veto is necessary and all!
  • Sandr303
    Sandr303 16 September 2013 13: 46 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    There is another traitor - Serdyukov
    1. Serg 122 16 September 2013 14: 12 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      He is a WITNESS! They - do not offend yes
  • kim. 230752 16 September 2013 14: 01 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: TS3sta3
    In the USA, sequestration of the budget, they do not even have money to support the FBI. where will they get the money for the deployment of medium and short range br?



    We have already begun budget sequestration in Russia. Reasons: the wrong people are leading the economy, and the country as a whole. And, it seems, they depend on the oligarchs, or in proportion with them.
  • Blondin nikonov
    Blondin nikonov 16 September 2013 14: 02 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    eh Misha, Misha sold the rat to the country .......
  • Harmony
    Harmony 16 September 2013 14: 06 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I agree with Gennady, no one needs to listen. We must do something that guarantees our security by 200%, all the strategic offensive arms agreements are long outdated and trampled by our "partners" themselves. Although of course, such a policy must be accompanied by an active propaganda policy in the United States. In the end, we place on our territory, and they are in other states and on our borders.
  • Aleks tv 16 September 2013 14: 49 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    When, finally, the bald man will be rewarded according to his desires?

    History textbooks are disgusting to view, and their children read ...

    "Hang out" he wanted beautifully in front of the west. For the sake of one smile, the Anglo-Saxons were ready to discard the port. He really appreciated these Western smiles and exclamations of approval.
    “OKA” is a drop in the sea of ​​misfortunes that he does, but only for its destruction is he a TRAITOR.
    I remember how the officers spat and sent to the military district for OKU without fear ... because even the army special officers were silent ...
    1. GDP
      GDP 16 September 2013 16: 36 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      My daughter bought textbooks in the first class, the task in mathematics - Two fathers and two sons live in one family. The question is, how many boys are there per parent ... Is this for families like that? These are the textbooks ...
      1. Max otto 16 September 2013 18: 26 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It’s a normal task, if all blue is left out of the head, then everything is fine, the son’s family lives with their parents (one family is considered, normal people have it), they have a son, it turns out one by one. Think positive, don't litter your head hi
  • Maks-80 16 September 2013 15: 34 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Definitely withdraw from this agreement. PS Gorbach judge for treason and sentenced to death.
    1. zennon 16 September 2013 23: 09 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      quote = Maks-80] Unambiguously withdraw from this agreement. PS Gorbach judge for treason and sentenced to death. [/ Quote]
      [
      But what about a barrel of jam and a box of cookies?
  • Sergey Medvedev 16 September 2013 16: 16 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The author considers the possibility of arming missiles in the framework of existing treaties. What for? These Humpbacked treaties were initially treacherous. No need to look back at them, you need to proceed from the reality of today.
    1. Rus2012 16 September 2013 16: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Sergey Medvedev
      The author considers the possibility of arming missiles in the framework of existing treaties. What for? These Humpbacked treaties were initially treacherous. No need to look back at them, you need to proceed from the reality of today.


      I agree!
      No need to stumble forever on yesterday's moats ...
      RSD, then - RSD, together with a short range!

      An air start is certainly great. But, they will be on duty on the ground, in minute readiness for take-off to "insert a disposable syringe", as our division commander aptly said. Training in the air with weight and size mock-ups. And only occasionally doing UBP.

      "Exposing the blade - do not sheathe without honor ..."
  • Moore 16 September 2013 17: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In addition, it was planned to deploy the Pioneer BRDS in Chukotka. Their area of ​​operation would cover all of Alaska and northwestern Canada. When remodeling the missile’s warhead and deploying one light warhead on it, instead of three in the Pioneer missile area, a significant part of the US territory was found.

    Yes, such a Directive of the General Staff took place - with many zeros (who understands) from 21.06.83. I don’t know, however, what was more in it - delirium or the desire to get a trump card for trade - like the mythical Amer’s missile defense.
    The idea was based on using the site of the Gudym settlement - there was something under the 64th missile. For the ground DBK, the main protective properties of which are the uncertainty of location and mobility, it was difficult to find a less adapted terrain. Those. forests and an extensive road network were absent as concepts. I'm not talking about hemorrhoids with the supply of ammunition, spare parts, normal cable lines of the Ministry of Communications.
    The commission, however, went there - the idea was recognized as hopeless even for the scale of one division (3 SPU). The commander-in-chief of the Strategic Missile Forces Tolubko (the cleverest uncle!) Grimaced - they crushed hard from above - and he let the idea slip on the brakes.
  • Ivan Tarasov 16 September 2013 17: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is not necessary to withdraw from the agreement under the INF Treaty, however, to develop other delivery vehicles not included in the agreement.
  • Gur
    Gur 16 September 2013 17: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The hunchbacked guys did, of course, agree, but there is nothing to catch with the RSD missiles against us, therefore the Americans agreed, but we lost a lot from that and the EU countries are being squandered and not only
  • slacker
    slacker 16 September 2013 18: 17 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    For treason and treason, Gorbi should be hanged on the Forehead under a drum battle!