Military Review

Unrivaled Satan and Scalpel

74
Academician Vladimir Utkin.


I would like to share little-known readers with information about the unique features of our intercontinental ballistic missiles (P-36 and PC-22), created in 70 – 80-s of the last century. These most powerful missiles were named Satan and Scalpel in the USA due to their enormous deterrent potential. There are two reasons to remember them today. First, 17 October marks the 90 anniversary of the birth of their founder Academician Vladimir Fedorovich Utkin. And secondly, the Russian leadership expressed its intention to re-launch the production of such missiles.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEARANCE OF MULTIPLAYED ROCKETS

Increasing the power of American ICBMs by the middle of 60-s required the abandonment of the ground-group method of deploying our missiles in favor of placing them in km of silo launchers dispersed to 10, with depths up to 40 m and combat railway missile complexes (BZhRK) capable patrol at distances up to 1500 km from permanent locations. The high readiness for the launch of the P-36 in high-strength silos and the suitability of the PC-22 for a quick change of location increased the combat capability of the Strategic Missile Forces, which concerned the United States.

The qualitative increase in the accuracy of the US ICBM and mutual agreements on reducing the number of forced the designers to increase the power and security of a limited number of P-36 missiles.

However, it was impossible to achieve this by further deepening the silo and thickening of their walls because of the large cargo space of the rocket (length is over 32 m, diameter is 3 m and starting weight is more than 180 tons). It was here that the talent of Vladimir Utkin, who for the first time in the world realized the idea of ​​the so-called ICBM mortar launch with liquid-propellant rocket engines, manifested itself. Its essence is in taking the rocket out of the mine with the powder gases of external batteries.

This idea and the design solutions accompanying it allowed not only to use old silos, having increased their durability by 50 times due to thickening of the walls and decreasing the diameter (due to the failure of the channels diverting gases before the LRE worked there), but also to increase the payload of new R- 36Ms are almost up to 9 tons due to their greater starting weight and saving up to 10 tons of rocket fuel. This type of ICBMs were operated from 1974 to the end of the 80-x, and their last modification, P-36М2 “Voivode”, from the beginning of the 90-x to the present. P-36M missiles have formed the basis of our nuclear missile shield over the past almost 40 years.

Without a doubt, it can be argued that only the presence of more than 80 of our R-300M missiles at the end of the 36s led the United States to abandon its strategic defense initiative. Indeed, each of our missiles carried (except for 10 real nuclear warheads (YABZ) with a total capacity of up to 8 megatons of TNT) even before 10 heavy and 1000 false their simulators - metallized cellophane bags, shaped like YABZ, self-blowing in a vacuum and flying there along with combat in blocks. Therefore, in the case of simultaneous launch of even a dozen of such missiles, the American missile defense (PRO) then conceived would not be able to determine in advance and destroy the real YBZ.

Confidence in the imminent natural death of several dozen P-36M missiles made it possible for Americans in 2002 to return to the creation of a missile defense system. After all, by that time we have 120 pieces of them left, all the surviving P-36М2 (about 40 pieces) are made before 1992, the last 12 of them are on duty from 1992 of the year, and the rest are from 1991 and 1990. Their lifespan is periodically extended - from the initial 10 years to the currently established 24.

The PC-22 was rail-based with a slightly different fate. The first BZHRK with three ICBMs was put on alert in 1992 year. And the last three were removed from it in 2005. All missiles and BZHRK (except for one museum) are now destroyed. As for the true causes of the latter, then they will be discussed later.

UNIQUENESS OF UTKIN'S PRODUCTS

For the perception of the diversity and complexity of the problems that were first solved by Vladimir Utkin when creating P-36M missiles, imagine a situation. You need to ensure for a decade 50– a second readiness for release from a fairly deep shaft of 211-ton thin-walled (3 mm) and made from soft aluminum-magnesium alloy rocket. In addition, it contains not only 195 tons of self-igniting extremely aggressive and toxic components of liquid fuel, but also YABZ, the total capacity of 400 times more than a bomb exploded in Hiroshima. At the same time, all this should be in a transport-launch container (TLC), vertically suspended, like a pendulum, on a “cradle” that is damped relative to the walls of the silo silo.

It was also required that after receiving the start-up signal, it was first repeatedly re-checked by the missile control system, and then it was necessary to select and enter the flight task, taking into account the need for operational re-targeting of the YABZ due to the change of the combat mission or the UES turn on it . Then it was required to implement the received command: a) to carry out prelaunch pressurization of the fuel compartments of the rocket; b) jam the TPC depreciation system; c) open the "roof" (protective device) of the silo, having previously cleaned it from possible blockages of the ground; d) consistently launch three powder pressure accumulators, thus ensuring the smooth movement of the rocket inside the WPC and its powerful discharge from the mine by several tens of meters.

After that, the rocket soaring in free flight must “strip”, that is, get rid of the now unnecessary lateral shock absorbers (eight connected and falling half rings on both sides), which ensured easy sliding of the rocket inside the TPC. Then it was required to dump its pallet, which transmitted the impulse of powder gases to the rocket, and lead it to the side in order to avoid damage to the silo. In this case, the desired pressure drop in the fuel compartments should be created, if necessary, dropping part of their gas cushion into the atmosphere. And, finally, being in a state of weightlessness, it was necessary to simultaneously launch three liquid propellant rocket engines of its first stage, which is not easy for tanks with fluctuating liquid components of fuel.

If we keep in mind that after generating the fuel and dumping the first stage of the rocket, and then launching the second stage LRE and its department, the payload dilution unit entered the work for this reason, throwing out all the heavy and light false targets, and then suggesting (by repeatedly turning on and off a special rocket engine) each of the 10's own YABZs for the purpose prescribed only for him, then one can understand the scientific and engineering feat that Vladimir Utkin and his allied associates have accomplished in their time.

Indeed, for the first time, for example, they succeeded: a) to apply the so-called hot boost of rocket tanks, realized by injecting one self-igniting component into the fuel compartment of another; b) create shock absorbers that for decades have retained elasticity under almost 400-ton load; b) to develop a system for measuring fast and slow turnovers of silos caused by exposure to nuclear explosions; c) to ensure the many years of correct operation of gyroscopes with rapidly rotating rotors; d) to equip the rocket and the breeding unit with unique in terms of the effectiveness of the LRE.

Here are the names of general and chief designers co-authors Vladimir Utkin, whose merits are confirmed by several dozens of certificates for inventions: Stanislav Us - the creator of the rocket body design, Vladimir Stepanov - the creator of its silos, Vladimir Sergeyev - the creator of the ICBM control system, Viktor Kuznetsov - the creator of the hydro-stabilized command complex Devices, Valentin Glushkov and Vyacheslav Rakhmanin - the creators of the LRE.

ROCKET TRAIN

In many ways, similar in originality to the design and technological solutions implemented in the creation of BZHRK. Vladimir Utkin created an ICBM weighing more than 100 tons, and together with TPK and devices for lifting it in a vertical position - up to 130 tons. The long length of the MBRs (around 23 m with the limit for 22 m refrigerators) required the creation of a special folding fairing for the 10 YABZ.

It was not easy for Alexey Utkin to design the train with three such missiles, which were able to be placed in three permanent sections comprising three cars each, the middle of which had eight axles, and the rest carried part of its weight (more than 150 tons). In addition, the BZHRK was to: a) reach a speed of up to 120 km / h, and after receiving the command, within as little as three minutes, stop as fast as possible; b) to jack up the wagon with a rocket, take the traction electrical network to the ground (if it was); c) open the roof of the car and throw out the rocket using a special powder accumulator; d) start the engines of an exploded MBR, having previously tilted it with another battery in order to avoid damage to the composition of the jet of combustion products coming from the engine.

For justice, I will also note a number of shortcomings inherent in this BZHRK.

Putting them into operation required reinforcement of more than 15 thousand km of railway tracks, for which they replaced wooden sleepers with reinforced concrete and laid the heaviest (75 kg / m) and strong rails on them, the reason being the increased specific load on the railway track.

The train was set in motion by three diesel-electric locomotives, one of which was at its end - to disperse three launchers to the 5 km and launch.

In the case of a railway train derailment, the consequences would be dire. Indeed, in the LRE of the unit for the breeding of JABZ missiles there were self-igniting fuel components, moreover, in tanks made of soft (aluminum-magnesium) alloy fixed on rigid titanium brackets. Nearby were cylinders with nitrogen and high-pressure air, batteries, and YABZ themselves, which then contained conventional explosives, capable of detonating in the event of a prolonged fire.

To sum up, I cannot fail to note here the merits of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, which deployed P-36 and PC-22 missiles in the very center of the country. In addition to the improvement and improvement of the road network of underdeveloped territories, such a decision significantly increased the deterrent role of the Strategic Missile Forces due to the real possibility of launching missiles in a retaliatory nuclear strike.

HOW THE USA GET OFF SOVIET ROCKETS

Having understood the danger of retaliation, the Americans decided to neutralize ICBMs of the P-36 type with their operational-tactical Persings, gathering to place them in Afghanistan (closer to our silos). This forced the Soviet Union to enter there a limited contingent of troops. Realizing the impossibility of this undertaking, the United States organized a campaign to devalue these missiles. They claimed that the X-NUMX P-10 YABZ was allegedly guaranteed to be destroyed by one unit of American ICBMs (which is doubtful because of the difficulty of counting Coriolis forces - one of the inertia forces - and the lack of experience of launching missiles over the North Pole). And they also tried to discredit our country for the same reasons, as if intending to strike the United States first with such missiles.

Start rocket R-36М2 "Voyevoda".

Using such misinformation, widely propagated by lobbyists from some RAS institutes, the Americans began to eliminate all our P-36-type missiles under agreements on mutual limitation and reduction of strategic offensive arms - START-1 and START-2. In particular, with the help of the first treaty, Gorbachev was able to persuade the destruction of 50% of these missiles, and the second already Yeltsin, to eliminate not only the remaining 154 ICBMs of this type, but also all our other multi-charged mine rockets. The hatred of the Americans for the P-36 type missiles was also manifested in their demand (for START-2) to destroy all their silos - some had to be blown up, and others to be poured with concrete and to reduce the diameter.

As for the true reasons for the hasty deliverance of Russia from their BZHRK, they are not so much, as they usually say, US pressure or Yeltsin’s treachery, but the enormous risks of possible railroad derailments with them. I will clarify that when a fire occurred on a BZHRK, the operating personnel were instructed to immediately leave them and retire to 2 km. But it should have been extinguished by special (auxiliary) trains of the Ministry of Railways, whose readiness for leaving the wreck was eight hours.

It was this circumstance, known to the Americans, that allowed them to blackmail our political leadership, already frightened by Chernobyl and therefore quickly agreed to abandon the BZHRK patrols. The railway workers were also happy about the refusal, since the transportation schedules and those sections of the road where there were wooden sleepers stopped breaking down - after passing this train, the crutches jumped out under the rail junctions. This decision was on hand and the military leadership, although the risk of accidents during patrols was replaced by the risk of sabotage with trains standing in the open air near major cities and rivers of Russia.

The reference to the START-2 Treaty, which required the destruction of only all multiply charged mine rockets and did not formally enter into force, is untenable. However, its provisions were meekly fulfilled by Russia in the period from 1993 to 2000 year. At the beginning of the 90-s, our country was imposed a false course on the preservation and reproduction of Topol-type land-mobile ICBMs, as vulnerable as the former ground-group dislocation missiles, due to the ease of detection and destruction by any means. Additional evidence that these new missiles do not pose any threat to the United States is the ignoring of Topol-type missiles in all the mentioned START treaties.

HEAVY ROCKET HAS SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS IN RUSSIA

Even more strange are the speeches against the decision taken by the Russian government to create a new heavy mine missile with a liquid propellant rocket engine and a new BZhRK. The prerequisite for such a decision was the awareness of both the inevitability of the coming redistribution of the world in order to redistribute non-renewable natural resources in favor of the United States, and the inability of domestic strategic nuclear forces to prevent the associated external aggression. The evidence of the latter is the conclusions of two American professors that after the 2015 year, the United States can “destroy Russia and China with impunity with one blow,” since “Russian mobile ICBMs rarely maneuver,” “tests of new submarine missiles ended in failure” and “Russia will soon only the 150 MBR will remain. ”

The reason for the creation of heavy missiles was the new START Treaty, which was concluded in the 2010 year and which allows 800 carriers with 1550 YABZ. Despite the belated, but still correct decision on the need to create a new missile like the P-36M and PC-22, it was strongly criticized by the homegrown US lobbyists and their allies, the creators of the Topol ICBMs. In particular, the general designer Yuri Solomonov reproached the creators of the new heavy ICBM with LRE in "exposure to the conjuncture with its market connections" and called them "misanthropes, defiantly ignoring the danger and not supporting their compatriot." Further, he called the new ICBM a rocket “30-year-old, which does not provide the necessary survivability in a retaliatory strike and non-adaptive to modern missile defense systems with space-based elements.”

In reality, the situation is assessed as completely opposite. It was Yury Solomonov who has already spent tens of billions of rubles on the Bulava-30 rocket, which is inferior to the American Trident 1979 of the year, and there is no such thing anywhere in the world because of the absurdity of this project, and not because of supposedly foreign technological weakness.

"Mace-30" and "Topol" have a low flattened trajectory, convenient for their defeat by the American missile defense system "Aegis". She is able to shoot down even more high-speed artificial satellites. But the combat space tools suitable for the destruction of missiles such as P-36, the Americans do not.

Thanks to the colossal weight being thrown, the new Russian ICBM will be able to implement all known methods of breaking through any missile defense system - blinding it with a large number of false blocks, enveloping the NRA with a cloud of radio-absorbing plasma, delivering them not through the North, but through the South Pole of the Earth, putting planned equipment into orbit with an unpredictable trajectory flight. It is here that the question arises regarding the renewal of BZhRK: why are they so opposed to the decision to lay down a relatively small, lightweight and already created ICBM “Yars” not on the car, but on the railway chassis? After all, this decision will deprive the former train of almost all the flaws. Is it because that such a project does not suit the overseas partners?

Self-preservation of Russia - only in the speedy reconstruction of ICBMs of the P-36М2 type and a well-camouflaged BZHRK capable of continuous patrolling with a lightweight solid-fuel rocket. Moreover, all this is completely feasible: the design and technological documentation has been preserved, and the country has the necessary production capacity. After all, while these systems will be on combat duty, the United States will never decide on aggression.

So, is it not time for the living co-authors of Vladimir Utkin and their numerous students from Moscow, Voronezh, St. Petersburg, Samara to support and implement the appropriate, well-reasoned decision of the Russian government? And will this not be a sign of the biggest and sincere respect for the memory of the outstanding designer Vladimir Utkin?
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Boot under the carpet
    Boot under the carpet 5 November 2013 09: 15 New
    +8
    Great topic video
  2. pahom54
    pahom54 5 November 2013 09: 36 New
    51
    He himself served in the BZHRK, and I remember the whistle that the Americans started around them. They were afraid of BZHRK great !!! I remember how we spat and gritted our teeth when, nevertheless, they were put under a knife ...
    Yes, and Satan constantly acted on the nerves of amers. In general, at some point in time, it might seem that apart from Satan and Scalpel, we have nothing, since all conversations and political discussions revolved only around them.
    This once again confirms the need for an early return and deployment of similar funds. This WE must have such a nuclear potential that can simultaneously destroy both the USA and NATO, and someone else, with the goal of just preventing an attack on us, on Russia.
    The genius of Utkin, the professionalism of his comrades-in-arms at one time brought great benefits to our country (whatever you call it - the USSR, Russia), and we would like to hope that his students do not blunder in the modern situation.
    If only the country's leadership saw this need, if only it would not repeat the "deeds" of the 90s of the twentieth century. And the money will be found, will not go anywhere. It is necessary to take the Central Bank for Zhepa, generally reconsider its functions and status, take assets from foreign banks and foreign bills - because thanks to their huge amount now we (Russia) can find ourselves in a huge J-e tomorrow.
    But Utkin - good memory and many thanks!
    1. valerei
      valerei 5 November 2013 13: 29 New
      -19 qualifying.
      pahom54, It has been scientifically proven that a missile salvo of just one nuclear submarine hitting land will start a nuclear winter. And then the living will envy the dead. Self-taught politicians almost never listen to the conclusions of truly educated professionals. Therefore, even now there is still a nuclear potential capable of several times !!! destroy all life on earth. Therefore, if we follow the logic, the destruction of Russia, as well as the United States, by a one-time nuclear strike will automatically lead to the death of the other side, only stretched out in time. Local application of Yao is also impossible, since the mechanism of a global nuclear war is automatically launched, with all the ensuing consequences for all parties. It is nonsense to agree in advance on the use of only local nuclear strikes for all parties! Nuclear weapons helped Russia to prevent a global war and as a deterrent is really necessary - this is obvious even without this statement of mine, but how much and what kind of Yao to have for us, bloggers, is not given. Well, we don't have our own "CIA" and therefore don't have the raw data. So, everything that is written on this topic on the site is nothing more than the reasoning of old women on the heap. And there is only one thing in common between the old women and us: no one hears either them or us, except ourselves.
      1. hook
        hook 5 November 2013 19: 26 New
        24
        In the 19th century, the volcano Krakatau exploded in the Sunda Strait. The power of its explosion corresponds to an explosion of approximately 200000 Hiroshima (Wiki), which exceeds the existing planetary nuclear potential. The volume of bad gases released into the atmosphere is hundreds (?) Cubic meters. The result is beautiful sunsets and sunrises. In winter, because of this, it did not smell. But these are still flowers. In the same strait before Krakatau another volcano erupted, which threw out many times more volume of ash and gas. It was then that 3 years without a summer were recorded, which were caused by crop failures and famine in a number of countries, in Russia too. It is worth revising the concept of nuclear winter is a myth. Nuclear explosions and related fires will not release a sufficient amount of dust and gases into the atmosphere. Well, a salvo with one apl can only guarantee unacceptable damage to the economy of America.
        1. hook
          hook 5 November 2013 22: 21 New
          +1
          Quote: hook
          The power of its explosion corresponds to an explosion of approximately 200000 Hiroshima (Wiki), which exceeds the existing planetary nuclear potential. The volume of bad gases released into the atmosphere is hundreds (?) Cubic meters

          I will correct. Let's take the aggregate of nuclear weapons in 20000 "Babies" on Wiki for 2009. Then the explosion of Krakatoa is half of the total YAO-200MTn. The volume of ash is 18 km. There was no significant cold snap. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 - 800MTn - is 2 times more than the arsenal of nuclear weapons and a poor harvest in 1816, which did not lead to depopulation in affected Europe. Everything is taken from the Wiki in the "Nuclear Winter" section. Of course, both of these eruptions, in contrast to the war, are local, and within a radius of 500 km there was hell and genocide, but the quantity and method (stratospheric) of ash distribution is more effective in comparison with fires (topospheric). And Tambora threw out 10 times more ash in an explosion 4 times more powerful than Krakatausky.
          1. abdrah
            abdrah 6 November 2013 02: 44 New
            +1
            You are talking about ash from fires and dust from a nuclear explosion (after all, during an air explosion, and they are most effective, the leg of a nuclear "mushroom" does not always reach the luminous area), the pollution of the atmosphere is relatively small and you compare a volcanic explosion and ash that flies into almost into the stratosphere and can dirtiest half of the globe, but there are different conditions for the use of nuclear weapons - after all, you can limonate a 20 megaton monoblock warhead from Satan to the Appalachian coal mine, and get a response to Kusbass, then nuclear winter cannot be avoided - coal dust after such a hit will be years rush in the upper layers of the atmosphere ... It will be worse than the mega charges of Sakhorov on the seabed.
            But about the real modeling of the use of nuclear weapons it is unlikely that you will be told about this on the wiki.
            1. hook
              hook 6 November 2013 05: 26 New
              0
              You can still hit Yellowstone, then there is a chance to awaken a supervolcano ... But why a war without victory? And the ashes and dust from the stratovolcano fly directly into the stratosphere in huge quantities, which is not available for a nuclear explosion, where most of the combustion products remain lower and the rate of self-cleaning of the atmosphere is greater, the area of ​​pollution is less. The Krakatau stratovolcano polluted the atmosphere much more than any war scenario, but not enough to cause any noticeable decrease in insolation. This is the indestructible argument of the opponents of a nuclear winter.
              1. clidon
                clidon 6 November 2013 06: 42 New
                0
                The chance to awaken Yolstone with nuclear weapons is about the same as stamping your feet on the floor to awaken the Kamchatka volcano.
                A good example of the weaknesses of nuclear winter supporters was the fires in the Middle East oil fields.
                1. hook
                  hook 6 November 2013 07: 27 New
                  0
                  Quote: clidon
                  Chance to Awaken Yolstone with Nuclear Weapons

                  Why? This is a weak spot in North America. There is another fault line in California — tensions have also accumulated there — some geologists do not rule out that a nuclear provocation will cause an earthquake with flooding, which will again wake Yellowstone ahead of time, although its time is just around the corner.
                  1. clidon
                    clidon 6 November 2013 08: 52 New
                    +1
                    Weak point, I agree. Although there is much more speculation than any real knowledge. A nuclear explosion is just a grain of sand against the backdrop of natural phenomena. This Yolstone shakes with deep underground vibrations more than once a year, tectonic displacements of millions of tons of rock. And you want some kind of weak poke in the earth's crust to cause global consequences. This is nothing more than a popular bike. The power of nuclear munitions when exposed to the earth's crust is vanishingly small.
                    1. hook
                      hook 6 November 2013 09: 35 New
                      0
                      Quote: clidon
                      A nuclear explosion is just a grain of sand against the backdrop of natural phenomena.

                      I agree. But in the mountains, sometimes a simple cry (albeit rarely) causes an avalanche, although the wind blows, pebbles from the rocks roll in, the hook has recently been hammered ... There is no necessary methodology for calculating earthquakes (as far as I know), all this is from the area of ​​assumptions — you're right , but we can also assume that San Francisco is not subject to nuclear bombardment - there is still a risk of causing an all-planet cataclysm.
    2. 77bob1973
      77bob1973 6 November 2013 08: 46 New
      0
      In my opinion, the author was mistaken that a solid-fuel rocket and fuel components could not pour out of it in the first place, secondly, in the P-350 train there were 17 wagons in the head, three locomotives according to the system of many units, the pushing locomotive was not attached from behind, because the weight Its only 2500 tons, and three locomotives for separation into APU.
      1. Nickanor
        Nickanor 2 December 2014 11: 39 New
        0
        Be careful - the rocket is solid propellant, and the engine of the stage of dilution of the HF liquid because it requires multiple on-off, which is unlikely to be done on the basis of solid fuel.
  3. svp67
    svp67 5 November 2013 09: 53 New
    +3
    The self-preservation of Russia is only in the speedy reconstruction of the P-36M2 ICBM and a well-camouflaged and capable of continuous patrol BZHRK with lightweight solid rocket.
    That's right - it is necessary to create a NEW combat system, wisely using old experience and using advanced ideas, developments and new materials ... There is simply no other way, since the main developer and manufacturer, YuzhMash, remained outside Russia, our country not volens "you need to do something new, something that you can produce yourself, on your own base ...
    1. AVV
      AVV 5 November 2013 20: 47 New
      +3
      Makeevtsy will be useful for this, they have excellent achievements, and their experience will be very necessary here !!!
    2. lukewarm
      lukewarm 10 February 2014 16: 10 New
      0
      Yuzhmash remained in Ukraine, for sure. But he wouldn't have helped either. I looked in "Shock Force" once - he makes trolleybuses now. Everything, baked.
  4. aszzz888
    aszzz888 5 November 2013 09: 54 New
    +5
    Unique people, unique designs!
    How many such nuggets we have - not to count. This is Russia!
  5. Hudo
    Hudo 5 November 2013 11: 28 New
    +2
    I would like to have a smaller look in your mouth sworn enemies of Russia to the "overseas partners" and their local puppets what they are saying there, in the matter of recreating the BZHRK and putting it on the database.
    1. AVV
      AVV 5 November 2013 14: 17 New
      0
      There is no reception against scrap, if we had more of such systems that would break the overseas missile defense !!!
  6. abc_alex
    abc_alex 5 November 2013 11: 46 New
    +7
    He wrote everything correctly, only kept silent about something.
    First: both the missiles were developed by the Yuzhnoye design bureau, that is, in Ukraine. And today it is impossible to produce them in Russia. Even extending the service life of "Satan" requires cooperation with Ukraine.
    And "Well done" was also produced there at Yuzhmash.
    In the same place, in Ukraine, control systems for both missiles were also produced.
    So just resume Russia cannot manufacture these missiles. Alas. It is necessary to recreate technical solutions and production cooperation.

    Second, Satan's scourge is its fuel. "Heptyl" aka unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (CH3) 2N2H2 itself is highly toxic and unstable. And in combination with the oxidizing agent nitric tetroxide N2O4, which is toxic so that not an ordinary, but an insulating gas mask is required, and when it leaks, it affects the body like nitric acid, and when mixed with organic substances is explosive creates a lot of problems. The oxidizer tanks are always under excess pressure, the rocket is "ampouled", that is, all lines are irreversibly sealed. But this essentially does not change anything, the rocket "eats" itself from the inside. Therefore, the service life for R-36MUTTH, for example, is set at 10 years. It is being extended, of course, but not for fundamental terms.
    Meanwhile, the solid-fuel LGM-30G Minuteman III has been in service in the United States since 1970. Already 40 years old.

    Bottom line: ICBMs of a heavy class, a full replacement for "Satan" is definitely needed. But it should not be P-36, in a new incarnation.
    1. shtanko.49
      shtanko.49 5 November 2013 13: 35 New
      +5
      Today in Voronezh they tested a new oxygen-hydrogen engine, 7,5 tons is designed for Angara-5, it is a heavy rocket.
      1. AVV
        AVV 5 November 2013 22: 44 New
        0
        There will be an interesting situation, everything will depend on who will be given the opportunity to develop a heavy rocket !!! But it is needed like air! In the meantime, there is no replacement for Satan !!! And there is not much time left to develop a new system. Although Satan has extended the resource, it’s impossible to extend to infinity !!! We are waiting for the news !!!
    2. knn54
      knn54 5 November 2013 13: 38 New
      +7
      - “Bulava-30” and “Topol” have a low flat trajectory, convenient for their defeat by the American Aegis missile defense system. It is capable of shooting down even faster artificial satellites. But the Americans do not have combat space vehicles suitable for destroying missiles of the R-36 type.
      Shots down satellites - if the flight path is known. And the spectacular destruction of the maneuvering warheads themselves is visible only in the movies and "during the experiments."
      Now the Yankees are not in vain placing missile defense systems along the borders with the Russian Federation - in reality, with a high probability, it is possible to hit a missile at the start, rather than catching them later. Unfortunately, multi-headed rockets with LRE are more vulnerable at launch, but they are an important trump card.
      The level of Utkin missiles is now at an unattainable height. And I think that I should underestimate the work of Solomon in the difficult conditions of the USA that has caught up with, given the lag in solid fuel missiles. not worth it.
    3. Walker1975
      Walker1975 5 November 2013 15: 34 New
      -14 qualifying.
      Yes, Ukraine and Russia together were strong both in space and in rocketry ... But, all the same, "Stana" is the pride of Ukrainian rocketry.
      1. aleshka
        aleshka 5 November 2013 16: 01 New
        20
        Satan is the pride of Soviet rocketry !!! There was not then, and there is no "Ukrainian rocketry" now !!!
        1. Walker1975
          Walker1975 5 November 2013 18: 02 New
          -15 qualifying.
          Uh-huh ... Everything was Soviet, and Russia is the legal successor of the USSR, so everything was Russian? Do you think so somewhere? Well then go ahead! Try to create a rocket that won't fly like the Bulava - to whom God will send.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 5 November 2013 18: 09 New
            10
            Quote: Walker1975
            Well then go ahead! Try to create a rocket that will not fly
            It would be why puffing with a yellow-blakpitnoy ensign. Give it a try. Create, yourself. And do not eat the Soviet inheritance, fingers spread out
            1. Black Colonel
              Black Colonel 7 November 2013 11: 56 New
              +1
              So won’s self-styled, tilki like that tsutsyk, scho chains, tilki bark pid tune uncle Sam. A bilsh can not. And it’s a pity, together they could have rolled mountains.
          2. clidon
            clidon 5 November 2013 18: 10 New
            +1
            So the same Poplar flies normally.
          3. SV
            SV 24 November 2013 21: 18 New
            0
            HA, Utkin bykh ho "Ukrainian tongue
        2. Black Colonel
          Black Colonel 7 November 2013 11: 51 New
          +1
          "... there is no now" Ukrainian rocketry "!!!"
          It does not seem to be.
        3. raf
          raf April 16 2015 22: 31 New
          0
          Quote: Alesha
          Satan is the pride of Soviet rocketry !!! There was not then, and there is no "Ukrainian rocketry" now !!!


          Actually, it's not Satan but "Voivode", let the mattress makers call them whatever they want, but for me "Voivode"!
    4. PSih2097
      PSih2097 5 November 2013 15: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: abc_alex
      Bottom line: ICBMs of a heavy class, a full replacement for "Satan" is definitely needed. But it should not be P-36, in a new incarnation.

      why not P36M4 (following UTTX)
      1. clidon
        clidon 5 November 2013 18: 10 New
        +2
        Because there is no where to get it.
    5. staryivoin
      staryivoin 2 March 2014 18: 24 New
      0
      Dear Alex (can be in Russian)
      Yes, Satan was a liquid rocket, but even this gave her an advantage. For example, our deployed in Kazakhstan in the 80-s could reach their place until about 2006. Although our parts were reduced thanks to the rampant jerk in 1995. And we had a rocket capable of launching under nuclear conditions. Plus, those who did not have time to cut into metal successfully completed tasks at Baikonur, and without fail. Plus a unique mine, plus a RBU complex.
      And as far as I know, the Minutemen fail during trials. And sometimes they just fall. Of course they have solid fuel, it is safer for the environment. But I do not know the accident during UBP Satan. When we want, we can do everything.
    6. staryivoin
      staryivoin 2 March 2014 18: 24 New
      0
      Dear Alex (can be in Russian)
      Yes, Satan was a liquid rocket, but even this gave her an advantage. For example, our deployed in Kazakhstan in the 80-s could reach their place until about 2006. Although our parts were reduced thanks to the rampant jerk in 1995. And we had a rocket capable of launching under nuclear conditions. Plus, those who did not have time to cut into metal successfully completed tasks at Baikonur, and without fail. Plus a unique mine, plus a RBU complex.
      And as far as I know, the Minutemen fail during trials. And sometimes they just fall. Of course they have solid fuel, it is safer for the environment. But I do not know the accident during UBP Satan. When we want, we can do everything.
  7. Tektor
    Tektor 5 November 2013 11: 50 New
    0
    I would suggest thinking about the development of three super-rockets, each of which could carry 100-200 nuclear warheads, and which would be located in tunnels in rocky ground with the possibility of changing the starting position underground. There should be about 10 such positions. These are missiles of the RESPONSE guaranteed retaliation. Partially or completely, they should be used to destroy heavily defended enemy objects, for example, so-called arks or tunnel cities.
    1. clidon
      clidon 5 November 2013 11: 59 New
      +2
      Yeah, and then she is knocked down at the start ... And 200 warheads fall to their native land. Such projects have already been discarded 40 years ago, and the rocket was given to the "cosmonauts".
      1. kotdavin4i
        kotdavin4i 5 November 2013 12: 50 New
        +2
        Quote: clidon
        and then they knock her down at the start ..

        Place it in the Urals or in Siberia - and hell who gets it on take-off ... hi
        1. clidon
          clidon 5 November 2013 12: 57 New
          +1
          For example, an enemy long-range fighter with a corresponding missile on board. Moreover, created for much less money and much more universal. Do not put eggs in one basket. And the cost of that system will be not just rather big but gigantic.
          1. shtanko.49
            shtanko.49 5 November 2013 13: 43 New
            +1
            And the fighter will barrage constantly over the site of the alleged launch of the rocket? What kind of fighter is this, and our territory is huge, not one thousand km of air need to fly over foreign territory, at least a rocket, at least an airplane.
            1. clidon
              clidon 5 November 2013 14: 03 New
              0
              Well, we are going to start in response to an enemy attack, or exclusively preventively. If the first one, the enemy can approximately understand the time of the return launch ...
          2. Airman
            Airman 5 November 2013 15: 14 New
            +1
            Quote: clidon
            For example, an enemy long-range fighter with a corresponding missile on board. Moreover, created for much less money and much more universal. Do not put eggs in one basket. And the cost of that system will be not just rather big but gigantic.

            And why do you need air defense so that enemy fighters fly with impunity?
            1. clidon
              clidon 5 November 2013 15: 30 New
              0
              Duc nuclear war w. They hit the air defense and flew a stealth comrade. In Soviet times, the Americans were going to use B-2s to destroy the Topol positions. And here the number of such bases will be relatively small and the gain, if successful, is rather big.
    2. mark1
      mark1 5 November 2013 16: 51 New
      +1
      That's right, tunnels + a "dead hand" complex + super missiles + nuclear submarines with nuclear warheads would calm our vls-a-vls for a long time
      1. clidon
        clidon 5 November 2013 18: 12 New
        +1
        And the State Duma, which would adopt a budget, would simply be put on the horns. )
        Better to immediately rivet the Death Stars. At least start developing a project. )
        1. mark1
          mark1 5 November 2013 19: 38 New
          +1
          Well, ha-ha, catching, of course, is fun, but let's look more seriously - the tunnels, because they are not from Moscow to Vladivostok, but simply a means of removing mobile missile systems from under the blow (you can learn from your Chinese comrades), an automatic submarine based on decommissioned boats ( at least for the first time) - the same is not a big problem, but we have always had super missiles (Voevoda could potentially carry from 36 to 48 warheads). So in theory, the matter is real and the horns of the State Duma will not suffer.
          P.S. "Zveeda of Death" is the prerogative of our counterparts, at first they caught it ha-ha, but it looks like they already thought about it.
          1. clidon
            clidon 5 November 2013 20: 22 New
            0
            Well, if you want seriously, let's first estimate the investment in such tunnels and everything will fall into place. Despite the fact that there is only a handful of money, it should be enough for everything.
            An automatic submarine should not be made on the basis of decommissioned nuclear submarines (because they are being decommissioned not because people feel bad there, but because they are swimming badly), but at least anew. But as practice shows so far, it is desirable to supplement all these machines with people. Sometimes with wrenches. Step by step, you will come to what is - mobile complexes, mines and SSBNs, and not just another exotic exotic.
          2. 77bob1973
            77bob1973 6 November 2013 08: 50 New
            0
            About tunnels, the Americans threw this idea to us, our act was easier to build BZHRK.
    3. Misantrop
      Misantrop 5 November 2013 18: 13 New
      +7
      Quote: Tektor
      to think about developing three super-rockets, each of which could carry 100-200 nuclear warheads, and which would be located in tunnels in rocky ground with the possibility of changing the launch position underground. There should be about 10 such positions. These are missiles of the RESPONSE guaranteed retaliation.
      And if you dig tunnels to the United States, you can do without missiles, deliver the nuclear warhead directly with a trolley ... laughing
  8. 311ove
    311ove 5 November 2013 11: 57 New
    +2
    To paraphrase a nursery rhyme, I would say: All kinds of missiles are needed, all kinds of missiles are important ... laughing
  9. Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 5 November 2013 12: 11 New
    +4
    Great article. It has always been hard to defend mobile nuclear weapons. Over the past 20 years, many enemies have appeared in Russia itself that directly support the anti-Russian West. You can’t live with these worms. On the other hand, decades of Russian occupation of course have led to the partial destruction of the main nuclear forces and ideological collaboration-betrayal. The growth of international respect must be supported by the right iron. Obviously, the combination of missile defense + mine installations is a winning one.
  10. rubin6286
    rubin6286 5 November 2013 12: 12 New
    10
    The article is interesting and may well be positively evaluated as a term paper in a university. At that time, when it was decided to create “Satan” and “Scalpel”, the country already had the necessary scientific, technical and industrial base. Many design solutions used in these samples were developed and successfully applied on a number of other missile systems created earlier in the design bureaus of Korolev, Yangel, Chelomei and others. That is why Satan and Scalpel were put into service in a relatively short time.
    Today, the country's economic, financial, scientific, technical, and production capabilities are different from those in the 70-80s, and the political leadership has to take this into account. "Mace", "Poplar" - this is a weapon of today, no less effective than what was created earlier and the decision to adopt them was quite reasonable and well thought out.
    Any type of weapon in the process of adopting weapons is being improved, changed, becoming better and more reliable. For example, a Kalashnikov assault rifle, created in 1947, has retained the potential of modernization to this day. The shortcomings identified in the "Bulava" and "Poplar" are removable and therefore the question of removing them from service and replacement is not worth it. I think that, speaking today about replacing the Satan and Scalpel complexes with similar or more advanced ones, the author hardly knows a tenth of the problems that arise during their operation in the army. If he himself was on combat duty at these complexes, personally descended to the tip of the silo, stood next to the transport and launch container, participated in routine maintenance, he would have a completely different idea of ​​this kind of technique. Having studied the structural and technical features of missiles as aircraft, the author switched from chatter about a flat trajectory, the possibilities of foreign missile defense, invulnerability, etc., to a more meaningful perception of the problem.
    I am no longer surprised that the authors of many comments give advice, sometimes not always smart, to people who are in high positions and make responsible decisions. What to do, we have a country of advice. Remember A. Surkov:

    “When you go along the columns,
    in heat and rain and snow
    then you’ll understand how expensive the house is,
    how sweet the night is.
    When you go this way
    not a day, not two soldiers,
    then you’ll understand how expensive the house is,
    like a father’s corner is holy. ”
    1. Shmm
      Shmm 5 November 2013 15: 04 New
      +1
      And you yourself opened the silo in the frost of minus 20 degrees centigrade to eliminate the DON-300 type malfunction? And another question - was the hatch-manhole closed in the snow? So don't talk about Surkov! These "De-Surkovs, De-Chubais" sold Russia.
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 5 November 2013 19: 38 New
        +1
        Son! I know not by hearsay who troubleshoots the combat missile system and which ones. I repeat again, when you yourself feel the advantages of "Satan", going down to fix the malfunction through the hatch-hole in the head, with your own hands, brains and lungs, in a word with your health, or you get lung silicosis from a long watch at the UCP, you will sing a completely different song and you won’t talk about who sold whom and for how much. You will not be up to it, other thoughts will creep into your head and maybe smarter.
        1. Shmm
          Shmm 6 November 2013 09: 00 New
          +1
          But I served as chief engineer on the RS-22. And I also heard something about the UKP. And who and where did you serve as "SON"?
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 6 November 2013 13: 17 New
            0
            Then do not be measured ......
    2. Walker1975
      Walker1975 5 November 2013 15: 37 New
      +1
      Quote: rubin6286
      "Mace", "Poplar" - this is a weapon of today, no less effective than what was created earlier and the decision to adopt them was quite reasonable and well thought out.


      Are you sure? It's hard to talk about the Bulava - well, it doesn't fly. And "Topol" ... compare the number of charges that are in service with "Topol" and "Satan", anti-missile defense systems ... Or what is the mega modernity of "Topol"? What characteristics is it better for?
      1. clidon
        clidon 5 November 2013 16: 43 New
        +1
        Poplar
        - cheaper in production and maintenance.
        - solid fuel.
        - has a mobile version.
        - Two times shorter acceleration period.
        - there is production.
        1. Walker1975
          Walker1975 5 November 2013 18: 05 New
          0
          Well ... the sword in relation to the tank:
          - cheaper in production and maintenance
          - does not require fuel
          - easy production
          - does not require spare parts
          - managed by 1 person ...

          I asked you about something else: why is Poplar better in terms of fighting qualities? Can he equally replace "Satan"?
          1. clidon
            clidon 5 November 2013 18: 09 New
            +2
            But, the sword cannot do what the tank does, and the "Poplar" can do the same thing as the "Voyevoda" - deliver nuclear blocks to the enemy's territory.

            Reread what I wrote, this is the most combat qualities. Faster delivers, cheaper, more reliable, can be mobile and is available.
            Loses in delivered weight. This is the board.
          2. Anphy
            Anphy 6 November 2013 00: 25 New
            +3
            People who are sick with this sore always amaze me (I don't know what to call it). Like a Ukrainian rocket (an airplane, a vacuum cleaner, etc.), but now you cannot build such a thing, because all this was done by wise Ukrainian designers. And such nonsense is widespread throughout Ukraine. Yes, not because everything worked out. But because the ALL huge country has developed and built all these things. Together. Designers and engineers from all over the Union, trained, not purchased diplomas. And they do not set themselves as the first goal to "mow the green", but are ready to sacrifice for the sake of the Country.
  11. buzer
    buzer 5 November 2013 12: 26 New
    +1
    but I liked the article on this site about Sakharov’s idea about megatroppeda with a nuclear charge ... That's what America could really be scared of!
  12. godun
    godun 5 November 2013 13: 22 New
    +1
    If we manage to create something similar, it will be such a "fist under the nose" for our "friends" ... The main thing is that SKOLKOVO and RUSNANO should not participate in the creation of these systems ... I remember the joy that NATO and the United States did not hide after destruction of these missiles, and other weapons, which were delivered to them either by the leaders of the country, or by its traitors, and I saw tears in the eyes of one of the creators of these weapons, who watched how they explode him and his associates, labor ...
  13. killganoff
    killganoff 5 November 2013 13: 37 New
    +4
    And yet it was not only Gorbachev and Yeltsin who "sawed" our missiles. The fate of the BZHRK was decided already in the 2000s.
  14. i.xxx-1971
    i.xxx-1971 5 November 2013 14: 11 New
    -3
    For some reason, he always considered Solomonov to be a Judas.
    1. aleshka
      aleshka 5 November 2013 16: 04 New
      -2
      surname is suspicious!
  15. Shmm
    Shmm 5 November 2013 14: 50 New
    +7
    I used the RS22 in the silo version, I can say that no "Topol" can stand next to it.
    I agree that we need to think about the Motherland, and the sheep's bedding (even if they are high-ranking officials) should be in places "NOT SO REMOTE".
  16. oldstaryi
    oldstaryi 5 November 2013 15: 53 New
    0
    Boys, why did you get excited? The author is behind the times: the Miass mall is riveting the design of a new 100-ton liquid rocket. In 2015, the layout should fly. And Mr. Solomon at the base of the Mace rivets a new BZHRK ... Everything will be fine! drinks
  17. bootlegger
    bootlegger 5 November 2013 17: 09 New
    +4
    The unskilled mowing of the mace is already fed up.
    "Mace-30" and "Topol" have a low flattened trajectory, convenient for their defeat by the American missile defense system "Aegis". She is able to shoot down even more high-speed artificial satellites. But the combat space tools suitable for the destruction of missiles such as P-36, the Americans do not.

    Since when did blocks flying along quasi-ballistic trajectories become Aegis easily knocked down?
    Their height above the target will be a maximum of several tens of kilometers. These goals are more likely for Patriot, not Aegis. But they are difficult for Patriot in speed. But Aegis is just geared for classic ballistic targets. It’s ridiculous to think that the Americans designed it for something else, and not under the main means of delivery BB.
    As a payload, the rocket can carry 6-10 hypersonic maneuvering individual nuclear guidance units with a total mass of 1,15 tons, capable of changing the flight path in altitude and course. Such a low-altitude flight profile, according to experts, gives reason to classify the missile as a quasi-ballistic type. The launch of the missile is inclined, which allows the underwater missile carrier to launch missiles on the go.
    Read more: http://www.arms-expo.ru/049055051051124049048055055.html

    The disadvantage of classic ballistic missiles is the high predictability of the trajectory and target.
    After all, control is only in the active and slightly passive atmospheric area.
    And the maximum trajectory can be a height of about 1000 kilometers, when a rocket is clearly visible for thousands of kilometers and its trajectory is easy to calculate.
    And the argument is that
    After all, each of our missiles carried (besides 10 real nuclear warheads (YBZ) with a total capacity of up to 8 megatons of TNT) also up to 10 heavy and 1000 of their false simulators - metallized cellophane bags having the form of YaBZ, self-inflating in a vacuum and flying there together with military in blocks.

    It matters only to an altitude of about 100 km. After this altitude, light simulators will inevitably lag behind the BB and will be selected as false. That is, only heavy simulators will matter.
    No need to consider designers fools.
  18. deman73
    deman73 5 November 2013 17: 32 New
    +1
    I won’t lie. A comrade who served in the Strategic Rocket Forces told that there was no reception against crowbar against Satan and said that the Yankers themselves said in communication that they were most afraid of our Satan
  19. MaKeNa
    MaKeNa 5 November 2013 19: 21 New
    +1
    Let's not talk about Bulava at all! Where is it? And you can understand Solomonov, with Bulava he is in a big ass, he ate a lot of money, but the result? Well, "Poplar" is not a bad thing, but the charges are on it with a gulkin's nose. Maybe there is some kind of hypersonic crap on it, but it is unlikely, otherwise the Americans would have raised a howl long ago. So heavy missiles are also needed, there is experience, perhaps a DESIRE, and when it is, we cannot be stopped!
  20. oldstaryi
    oldstaryi 5 November 2013 20: 11 New
    0
    The disadvantage of classic ballistic missiles is the high predictability of the trajectory and target.
    After all, control is only in the active and slightly passive atmospheric area.
    And the maximum trajectory can be a height of about 1000 kilometers, when a rocket is clearly visible for thousands of kilometers and its trajectory is easy to calculate.


    Yes Yes. Calculate the trajectory of Sineva's "bus". and I will laugh ...

    It matters only to an altitude of about 100 km. After this altitude, light simulators will inevitably lag behind the BB and will be selected as false. That is, only heavy simulators will matter.
    No need to consider designers fools.


    Heavy false targets are now being used. bully
    And if you make them manageable, like the main ones, then put out the light!
    1. bootlegger
      bootlegger 5 November 2013 21: 22 New
      0
      Yes Yes. Calculate the trajectory of Sineva's "bus". and I will laugh ...

      This bus runs long before entering the proposed missile defense zone. And this is a height of several hundred kilometers. Further, the blocks fly by inertia surrounded by false targets.
      Heavy false targets are now being used.
      And if you make them manageable, like the main ones, then put out the light!

      They are called conditionally heavy. It makes no sense to make them equal in mass to the BB.
  21. mithridate
    mithridate 5 November 2013 20: 22 New
    0
    fifth column in action?
  22. SPACE
    SPACE 5 November 2013 20: 57 New
    +2
    As there was an article by Nitup, where he proved the advantages of solid-fuel rockets and hayal liquid, including Satan, had to stand up for liquid. Now this article is exactly the opposite, now the barrel is being rolled onto a solid fuel mace and poplar, so I will stand up for solid fuel! Enough of these cheap disputes, and in one case and in the other there are advantages, so why not develop both directions equally, do not put the eggs in one basket. In the end, this is not market competition, it is the basis of defense capability, so let MIT build and develop solid-fuel, and Mias, liquid-propellant missiles. There is not much to do with the rockets of Satan, 50 pieces also make no sense for the eyes and new ones, you just need to copy Satan with new technologies and materials and recreate it again, piece production of one rocket per year is enough for army needs.
  23. vladstro
    vladstro 5 November 2013 21: 15 New
    0
    Yes, and cut primarily in the 90s, Satan
  24. Kizhich
    Kizhich 5 November 2013 22: 54 New
    +1
    A deep bow to the designers and inventors of such a formidable weapon! The article did not like, somehow everything is mixed in a bunch. BZHRK, silos, etc. It would be better to really write about the designers! There are two globally types: liquid and solid fuel! Each species has its advantages and disadvantages. Liquid production and design bureau mainly remained in Ukraine, and there wasn’t much money in the country, as a matter of fact, to develop this direction in a new way. A huge PLUS of liquids due to engines, fuel and rocket size (count tanks) can move forward in mass delivered (count BB), and the most important speed (and the world moves to hypersonic speeds) !!!!!
    Solid fuel due to its design features (fuel, tanks, etc.) unfortunately is already close to the limit of its capabilities! Yes, I agree with everything (see All the pros above), I completely agree. And most importantly, thanks to them, the shield is the SHIELD of the Motherland!
    PS BZHRK was removed from the database not in 2005, but much earlier under Yeltsin. Basically, they carried the database in places of permanent deployment, and not, as in the article, "traveled around the country." They were armed with solid-fuel missiles
  25. Cristall
    Cristall 6 November 2013 03: 10 New
    0
    Ukraine is forbidden to create weapons with a range of more than 500 km (I recall that to Moscow from the border 619 km)
    according to numerous agreements that just ensure its safety, guaranteed by the USA, RF, VK ...
    Therefore, Dnepropetrovsk citizens can do nothing in this direction for the country. However, there is already an acute financing issue.
    Although it may be for Russia, they could work not only to extend the life of ICBMs.
    The question is whether this is necessary for the Russian Federation itself, because the documentation is probably all from the Russian Federation. But cadres decide everything ... and they are a piece resource.
  26. I think so
    I think so 7 November 2013 01: 45 New
    -3
    To the MINUS author, simply because he calls OUR ROCKETS p.i.so.s.vo.s.p.i.r.p. and nicknames ... Shame! The use of foreign names should not be allowed to publish about our weapons! I didn’t even read, and so everything is clear, some kind of subtle obgazhenie with subtle nasty things ...
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 10 November 2013 14: 26 New
      0
      even the Il-18 had a NATO designation. "COOT" (simpleton). So what?
  27. Vikmay16
    Vikmay16 8 November 2013 21: 48 New
    0
    Explanatory article! It is clear to everyone that we are excited about disarmament! And on land and at sea we have nothing to scare NATO!
  28. vuvarovskiy
    vuvarovskiy 11 November 2013 20: 30 New
    0
    Russia needs these missiles now as air, to ensure the country's security! The Americans are getting close to our borders, for what purpose? I think there is no need to explain !!! But Gorbachev and Yeltsin ,,,,, the people will not forgive the Jews for the betrayal!
  29. Curious
    Curious 24 November 2013 11: 38 New
    0
    Nobody argues that the "marked" is a sent Cossack. But it seems that many of the modern Kremlin celestials with Gorbachev are from the same flock. Almost all the reforms carried out recently are aimed at weakening Russia.
  30. voliador
    voliador 18 December 2013 23: 32 New
    0
    Just how long will it take to create liquid rockets?
  31. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 April 27 2014 10: 33 New
    0
    The country needs to recreate the potential for heavy mine-and rail-based missiles to meet all the challenges of modern and promising missile defense systems.
    It is advisable to organize production with full import substitution.
    In addition to the foregoing, it is necessary to develop all possible components of strategic nuclear forces: long-range missiles for strategic aviation and reliable ICBMs for submarines (preferably with a decrease in their weight), and missiles (it is possible to launch OTP) capable of delivering nuclear charges and be placed in a standard container 13,55, 2.3 by 2,7 by XNUMX.