Military Review

New missiles for the Strategic Missile Forces and foreign reaction

117
Russia continues to modernize the material part of the armed forces. At the same time with other arms, new missiles and military equipment are received by strategic missile forces. The Strategic Missile Forces are an important part of strategic nuclear forces, and their development is one of the highest priorities. Currently, it is the rocket troops that carry out the main work of nuclear deterrence of a potential enemy. The Strategic Missile Forces account for about half of all deployed nuclear warheads, which is why in the near future this branch will remain the main part of the so-called. nuclear triad.




At the end of November, Russian President V. Putin announced some data on the course of the rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces and on the future of these troops. So, for 2013 a year, two regiments received new Yars mobile missile systems. Next year it is planned to supply more 22 complexes of this model. Over the next few years, Yars missiles should replace obsolete-type items removed from duty. It is assumed that in the near future, the Strategic Missile Forces of Russia will complete the operation of the R-36М2 Voyevoda and UR-100N UTTH missiles. Currently, there are still a few dozen of such missiles with expiring service life in the troops.

Thus, in the near future, three types of missile systems will remain in strategic missile forces: RT-2PM Topol, RT-2PM2 Topol-M, and PC-24 Yars. The share of new missiles will continue to grow. So, in the middle of last year it was reported that the share of the Topol-M and Yars complexes was about a third of the total. For this reason, the continuation of the construction and delivery of new models to the missile troops should accordingly affect the quantitative aspects of the nomenclature of the systems used.

An important feature of the Yars missiles is the split head used on them with combat units of individual guidance. This means that the rocket of the new model, in contrast to the old "Topol" or "Topol-M", equipped with a monoblock head, can attack several targets at once. According to different sources, the RS-24 “Yars” rocket carries from three to six warheads with a capacity of 150-300 kilotons.

It should be noted that the use of a divided head part is associated with some technical difficulties, and also affects the likelihood of the combat mission: when the missile is destroyed on the active part of the trajectory, several warheads will not be delivered to the targets at once. Nevertheless, a separable warhead with blocks of individual guidance is considered a convenient and mass-capable option for equipping intercontinental ballistic missiles.

An interesting fact is that foreign military and specialists watching the updating of the Russian strategic missile forces do not panic. The ongoing supply of new missiles with higher characteristics to the troops is an expected and natural result of the implementation of current programs. Statements and evaluations of foreign experts are restrained and brief. The renewal of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces is called the expected process, which, however, must be paid attention to, maintaining parity in the quantity and quality of strategic weapons and observing the conditions of international treaties.

At the same time, another point of view is being voiced, according to which the leading countries of the world, primarily the United States, should consider the renewal of Russian rocket forces as a cause for alarm. Finally, there are often calls to take action against arming Russia. However, such statements are more like a banal tantrum or an attempt to build out of the blue a sensation in order to raise its rating.

An important feature of the foreign reaction to the rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces of Russia is the fact that any statements by experts, journalists or people interested in this topic will remain private opinion. Foreign countries, primarily the United States, with which Russia has several treaties in the field of strategic nuclear weapons, have no serious grounds for official complaints. Russia fully fits into the terms of the existing agreements.

In accordance with the START-3 agreement, Russia may have 800 carriers of nuclear weapons, 700 of which can be simultaneously deployed. According to information published this fall, the number of Russian carriers does not exceed 900 units, and less than 500 is on duty. Thus, our country has a solid reserve for the modernization of strategic nuclear forces in general and strategic rocket forces in particular.

In recent years, US officials have repeatedly proposed again reducing the allowable number of nuclear weapons and their carriers. These initiatives did not receive support from the Russian side, which is why in the foreseeable future our country will have to comply with the restrictions imposed by the existing START-3 agreement. As long as Russia fully complies with all its obligations, other states have no reason to accusations.

In case of a similar development of events, foreign nuclear powers need only analyze the state of their nuclear forces, consider ways of updating and modernizing them, and also fulfill the terms of the treaties. At the same time, however, the United States or other nuclear powers will have to take into account the development of Russian nuclear forces and the Strategic Missile Forces in particular. As for Russia, it can calmly continue to implement its plans, but at the same time it must comply with its obligations. As events of recent years show, our country has decided to use this opportunity and upgrade its nuclear shield.


On the materials of the sites:
http://rus.ruvr.ru/
http://ria.ru/
http://lenta.ru/
http://bbc.co.uk/
Author:
117 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. sergey72
    sergey72 9 December 2013 08: 40 New
    11
    It's funny that some Westerners for "domestic consumption" say that: "these are mock-ups, rusty rockets, ALL rockets explode as soon as they start ...." In short, panic ..... laughing
    1. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk 9 December 2013 09: 56 New
      +7
      Well, Duc in Western comrades always and for any sound there is an acute attack of schizophrenia with elements of hysteria laughing let them say they’re nervous and weary, nervous squeals from the west show that we are doing everything right, it’s worse when they approve of it from there ...
    2. APES
      APES 9 December 2013 14: 42 New
      +9
      Quote: sergey72
      It's funny that some Westerners for "domestic consumption" say that:


      it doesn't matter what they say

      the main thing is to be sure that the Strategic Missile Forces are the best mail in the world.

      For example, as an additional measure, I would conduct all diplomatic correspondence of the Russian Federation with the help of the Strategic Missile Forces - so that our confidence goes into "THEIR" conviction. maybe not all the time - but at least once a year ...........
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Army1
      Army1 9 December 2013 21: 05 New
      +2
      Yes, they are still afraid, and let, and some here about the attack of the Tomahawks blah ..... blah ...
      The main thing is to destroy the enemies inside, and there is no limit to the power of Russia.
  2. pawel1961
    pawel1961 9 December 2013 09: 01 New
    +2
    constant anxiety, suspicion. Does this already resemble a medical diagnosis? but here, as it were, schizophrenia is not far in all its manifestations. i.e. inappropriate behavior etc etc what I want to say. and the fact that we, that is, the United States warmly and affectionately call partners someone even friends. what does it mean?
    1. kori
      kori 9 December 2013 12: 25 New
      +2
      Politics is everything. One thing in the language, another in the head. No one will ever lay out to a potential adversary their plans. Well, maybe at all.
  3. Eugeniy_369
    Eugeniy_369 9 December 2013 09: 08 New
    17
    The new missiles are good, but only if you compare the RS-24 "Yars" and the R-36M2 "Voevoda" then the enthusiasm will diminish, although the "Yars" seems to be mobile, but it replaces, and does not supplement, "Satan". And another question is which is better, a well-guarded mine, covered by air defense or a mobile platform. My opinion is needed heavy rocket!
    1. Civil
      Civil 9 December 2013 09: 11 New
      +3
      So they make a heavy rocket!
      1. rrrd
        rrrd 9 December 2013 12: 05 New
        +1
        until there is already an artificial missile), it is unnecessary to replace the gap with a missile twice as weak!
        1. little man
          little man 10 December 2013 11: 08 New
          +2
          It is indisputable.
          According to the commander of the Strategic Missile Forces of Russia, Sergey Karakaev, the Topol and Yars class solid-fuel missiles currently in service are not enough to overcome a potential enemy’s missile defense. Liquid rockets are best suited for these purposes ..... According to him, the development of a new rocket, which will be liquid, will end in 2018.
          But, probably, few people believe loud statements and promises here.
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 9 December 2013 15: 15 New
        +5
        Quote: Civil
        So they make a heavy rocket!

        Yes sir!

        Question "MIC": How long will the missile system with the "heavy" ICBM "Voevoda" last? Will Russia have time to prepare him a worthy replacement?

        The chief of the Strategic Missile Forces General Staff in the 1994 – 1996 years, retired Colonel General Viktor Yesin answers


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

        Now, a decision has been taken and is being implemented to create a new missile system (Sarmat experimental design work) to replace the missile complex with the Voevoda ICBM. It is planned to adopt it in 2018 year. After that, its deployment will begin in those missile formations that are currently armed with a missile complex with the “Voevoda” ICBM. If these plans can be implemented, “Voevod” will be prepared a worthy replacement.
        Read more: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/17289
    2. rrrd
      rrrd 9 December 2013 12: 03 New
      +2
      I also wanted to write about it about saw your message. I also do not quite understand these are two completely different missiles. how can I replace the governor with yars !?
      1. Eugeniy_369
        Eugeniy_369 9 December 2013 12: 29 New
        +5
        Quote: rrrd
        I also wanted to write about it about saw your message. I also do not quite understand these are two completely different missiles. how can I replace the governor with yars !?

        Yes, in any way! These are two completely different missiles. My opinion - the power of our Strategic Missile Forces from the removal from duty of "Satan" and "Stiletto" will decrease significantly, and poplars and yars will not compensate for this decrease. Yes, it seems to be good, they build missiles, take on duty, etc. but if you compare the throwing weight of the "Stiletto" and "Poplar" it becomes very depressing recourse . And the Amer’s strategy of a preemptive strike when only 3-4 warheads hit their territory does not look fantastic.
        PS And if you recall that we will soon write off new boats without rockets because of problems with the TU-160 engines, then .... it’s better not to think about it ...
        1. clidon
          clidon 9 December 2013 13: 54 New
          +5
          The Yars also has its own advantages - a missile with a short active section, more modern warheads, and there is a mobile version. Therefore, "American strategies" are not yet the ultimate truth.

          Tu-160 is not going to be written off, by the way, and there are still submarines. And if you take into account how much they used to go on combat duty before and now, then their combat readiness will not decrease much.
          1. Eugeniy_369
            Eugeniy_369 9 December 2013 14: 06 New
            0
            Quote: clidon
            Therefore, "American strategies" are not yet the ultimate truth.

            I do not argue with this, but only strategic nuclear forces are not a bag of potatoes, everything should be taken into account here.
            Quote: clidon
            By the way, yes, and there are still submarines

            Not more than two on the battlefield.
            1. clidon
              clidon 9 December 2013 14: 12 New
              0
              Not more than two on the battlefield.

              Yes, there were so many of them 10 years ago. All the rest are in the bases.
              1. Eugeniy_369
                Eugeniy_369 9 December 2013 14: 24 New
                0
                Quote: clidon
                Yes, there were so many of them 10 years ago. All the rest are in the bases.

                Only how many are in good condition and combat ready?
                1. clidon
                  clidon 9 December 2013 15: 14 New
                  0
                  Now less than 10 years ago, but so far there are some messes in stock. 7-8 pieces are a considerable number.
                  1. Eugeniy_369
                    Eugeniy_369 9 December 2013 16: 32 New
                    0
                    Quote: clidon
                    but so far there are chunks in stock.

                    The most correct phrase "YET STILL"
                    Quote: clidon
                    7-8 pieces are a considerable number.

                    The number is not small, but how many are there?
                    1. clidon
                      clidon 9 December 2013 17: 17 New
                      +1
                      With the introduction of the Boreyev, their number, at least, will not be reduced.

                      The number is not small, but how many are there?

                      "Dolphins":
                      K-51 “Verkhoturye”, K-407 “Novomoskovsk”, K-18 “Karelia”, K-117 “Bryansk”, K-114 “Tula”.
                      "Squids":
                      K-223 "Podolsk", K-433 "St. George the Victorious."
          2. zennon
            zennon 9 December 2013 21: 12 New
            +3
            short-range missile, more modern warheads,

            The short active section is a consequence of the impossibility of "solid propellants" to play with thrust. They are trying to pass off a shortage for dignity. Warheads are very light in their modernity. These pukals actively pushed by Solomonov will not save the country. As for the Tu-160, then a few of them on the fly. The reason is the loss. equipment and skilled labor for the production and repair of turbofan NK-32.Without a powerful liquid carrier, we are nothing ...
            That's what you need!
            1. Onyx
              Onyx 9 December 2013 21: 29 New
              +1
              Quote: zennon
              The short active section is a consequence of the impossibility of "solid propellants" to play with thrust.

              The short active section is a consequence of the greater thrust-to-weight ratio of solid-fuel rockets.
              Quote: zennon
              They try to pass on a lack for dignity.

              What is the disadvantage of short outs?
              Quote: zennon
              Warheads are lightweight in their day-to-day; these farthing actively pushed by Solomon will not save the country

              And how do the non-bullet missiles save the country?
          3. The comment was deleted.
        2. karavay1982
          karavay1982 9 December 2013 19: 59 New
          0
          My question is, and then live in a territory contaminated with radiation ???
          This is about power.
          What is the point, that it will explode, 1 megaton or 20 ???!
          Have you ever thought that even without reaching downed warheads they will infect everything — soil, water, air.
          The point is to build a new heavy missile, can it be easier to preventively kill the politician who gives the launch order?
          1. clidon
            clidon 9 December 2013 20: 39 New
            0
            Live? Well, about the same as the Japanese live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
            The meaning of 1 or 20 megatons in power of course and the scale of destruction. However, such power networks are already in service, everything is smaller.
            Downed warheads are nothing particularly terrible. There are kilograms of fissile material, not tons. Yes, and turn them into dust - you need to try.
            Kill Whose Politician?
          2. Shur
            Shur 9 December 2013 22: 01 New
            0
            It's a good idea, for example, generally mining since the Gulf of Mexico. A trump card in the sleeve, as they say, does not hurt. And questions like, and if it explodes, and if it depressurizes, they fight back with answers, and if they attack like in 41m .., and if the subhumans substitute their own by provoking a war. They also dream of reducing the population of the planet, so what difference does it make to them who will die, they will sit out on the islands in bunkers, they are constantly filming science fiction about it. Etzh scumbags, the establishment and ... to beat them .. And so only they are "op", as well as "gop". In addition, there is already a lot of fusion at the bottom of the oceans ..
          3. Shur
            Shur 9 December 2013 22: 05 New
            0
            And so I agree with you. LONG TIME TO CREATE A STRUCTURE FOR THEIR CALCULATION AND OPPOSITION. You can eliminate it humanely, washed the mosquito, zeroed it and let this depersonalized miracle walk. There, so they have idiots full of free walks, a little more .. A very tempting thought.
          4. zennon
            zennon 9 December 2013 23: 05 New
            0
            What is the point, that it will explode, 1 megaton or 20 ???!

            When the "Tsar Bomba" with a capacity of about 55 megatons was detonated over Novaya Zemlya, at the insistence of the developers, the uranium rod on it was replaced by a lead one. The power of course dropped by 30%, but you can now walk around this place. And if uranium remained ... The amers had bombs that differed only in the presence and absence of a rod of enriched uranium. They were respectively called "dirty" and "clean".
        3. Onyx
          Onyx 9 December 2013 20: 13 New
          0
          Quote: Eugeniy_369
          No way! These are two completely different missiles. In my opinion, the power of our Strategic Missile Forces will decrease significantly after the dismissal of "Satan" and "Stilet", and this decrease will not be compensated by poplars and yars.

          Let me ask you, by what criteria do you evaluate the power of our Strategic Rocket Forces?
    3. Lissyara
      Lissyara 9 December 2013 12: 54 New
      +1
      Zhenya, don't forget about the submarine fleet! "Bulava" immediately learned to fly after being worn out with Vizilin.
      1. clidon
        clidon 9 December 2013 13: 54 New
        +2
        The last time "Bulava" just flew unsuccessfully.
      2. Eugeniy_369
        Eugeniy_369 9 December 2013 14: 21 New
        +2
        Quote: LiSSyara
        Zhenya, don't forget about the submarine fleet! "Bulava" immediately learned to fly after being worn out with Vizilin.

        It's good that I learned wink .
        Only if you compare the R-30 and R-29RMU2 payload decreased sad . It’s good if it is compensated by the survivability of the rocket and the new principle of dilution on targets. But nevertheless, it is more pleasant when the adversary knows that eight gifts will arrive in one rocket bully .
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 9 December 2013 13: 16 New
      +2
      An interesting fact is that the foreign military and specialists who are watching the update of the Russian strategic missile forces, don't panic.

      This is suspicious. Maybe we are doing something wrong? Since they are calm.
      Usually, their hysteria and panic are just an indicator that we are doing everything right.
    6. Onyx
      Onyx 9 December 2013 19: 41 New
      0
      Quote: Eugeniy_369
      New missiles are good, but only if you compare the RS-24 "Yars" and the R-36M2 "Voevoda" then the enthusiasm will diminish, although the "Yars" seems to be mobile, but it replaces, and does not supplement, the "Satan"

      And you do not know that Yars is a universal missile, which is also intended for mine-based, so there will be no problem replacing the Voivode.
      1. rrrd
        rrrd 9 December 2013 21: 18 New
        +2
        Onyx

        you do not quite understand us! he wants to say that the governor is considered a heavy rocket with a liquid engine, which in turn throws up to 10 warheads, unlike 3-6 pieces. at the same time, as I heard, warheads on the governor also know how to monitored, and are still protected by 40 complex goals. (simple example: sold Lada bought Izh planet 5) and the voivode’s smart missile which is not afraid of electromagnetic pulses.
        1. Onyx
          Onyx 9 December 2013 21: 47 New
          -2
          Yes, I understand perfectly.
          Let's point by point:
          1. Since the creation of the Voivode, 25 years have passed. During this time, electronics has significantly decreased in size and mass, which reduces the necessary payload of the rocket.
          2. The accuracy of guidance has increased markedly. Consequently, the power of warheads can be reduced, which leads to a decrease in their mass. Which in turn also allows you to reduce the casting mass.
          3. On Yars, indeed, aeroballistic warheads maneuvering in the atmospheric section. Which practically guarantees getting them on target in the conditions of overcoming any missile defense. Indeed, it was planned to install such blocks on the Voivode, but the collapse of the Union did not allow to complete these works.
          4. Now about the number of warheads. Which is better: to have more missiles with fewer blocks on each, or fewer missiles with more warheads on each missile? It is obvious to me that the first option is better: the total number of blocks will be the same, but there will be more carriers capable of surviving in the response.
          1. zennon
            zennon 9 December 2013 22: 46 New
            +1
            It is energetically unprofitable to hammer on dense layers of the atmosphere. It is advisable to pass them smoothly, at 40% of power. And leaving the stratosphere give 100%. This will give a serious increase in range. The mass of on-board electronics can not be compared with the mass of warheads. Jewelry accuracy when using nuclear weapons It’s not needed, but its power is of paramount importance. In fact, what difference does a warhead get 200-300 meters to the side if its power is about a megaton? Yes, and it does not explode at the surface, but at an altitude of 400 meters or more. the number of warheads. And it is obvious to me that you need to have not just more, but heavier warheads, to inflict unacceptable losses on the enemy. Maneuvering warheads do not interfere with the installation of modern designed carrier with LRE. It is pointless to upgrade Dnepropetrovsk carriers.
            1. Onyx
              Onyx 9 December 2013 23: 09 New
              0
              It is beneficial to pass OUT quickly. TT missiles provide such a fast passage, unlike ZhT. And the range of TT does not suffer from this: the same 10-11 t km. Yes, liquid ones have high energy and mass perfection. But let's figure it out. What is the purpose of the RF SNF? Large throws are not an end in themselves. The goal of the strategic nuclear forces is to contain the enemy. That is, the aggressor should not even for a moment have doubts that he will be destroyed in retaliation. If TT missiles provide delivery of warheads to targets, then why else reinvent the wheel? In order to load the GRC with work? Now about the power. Do you consider 150 - 300 kt to be insufficient power "to inflict unacceptable losses on the enemy"?
              1. zennon
                zennon 9 December 2013 23: 16 New
                +2
                Not enough! A large city can only be swept away by a cobblestone, from 1 megaton warhead.
                A large abandoned mass is not an end in itself.

                Of course not! The goal is the removal simultaneously with heavy warheads of a large number of false targets, which is not possible with solid fuels.
                And the range does not suffer from this at the TT: the same 10-11 tons km.

                The weight is different!
                It is profitable to go out quickly

                It’s not obvious. Due to the large range, carriers with LRE are located deep in the territory, and we have enough space. At the start, they will not intercept.
                1. Onyx
                  Onyx 9 December 2013 23: 31 New
                  -1
                  Quote: zennon
                  Not enough! A large city can only be swept away by a cobblestone, from 1 megaton warhead.

                  300 kt is enough to destroy the middle city. Large can be destroyed in several blocks. Nobody wants to check on themselves for sure, believe me. And especially for the destruction of highly protected and heavily buried targets, there is a group of monoblock Topol-Ms with megaton-class warheads
                  Quote: zennon
                  Of course not! The goal is the removal simultaneously with heavy warheads of a large number of false targets, which is not possible with solid fuels.

                  Why is it impossible. On the ballistic section, Yars’s warheads are accompanied by light false targets, and Yars’s heavy LCs are simply not needed, because on the atmospheric section Yars’s aeroballistic warheads maneuver.
                  1. zennon
                    zennon 9 December 2013 23: 39 New
                    0
                    00 kt is enough to destroy the middle city. Large can be destroyed in several blocks.

                    They still need to be delivered. It is much simpler to have one warhead from 1 megaton and 4-5 full-fledged LCs. And who told you that there will be no maneuvering warheads on a new rocket with a rocket engine?
                    1. Onyx
                      Onyx 9 December 2013 23: 45 New
                      0
                      Quote: zennon
                      They still need to be delivered. It is much simpler to have one warhead from 1 megaton and 4-5 full-fledged LCs. And who told you that there will be no maneuvering warheads on a new rocket with a rocket engine?

                      Maneuvering warheads can also be delivered to Yars, why create a new missile for this?
                      1. zennon
                        zennon 9 December 2013 23: 54 New
                        +2
                        Again 25 ...QUANTITY, WEIGHT, COMPLETE LC! For the sim I’m leaving tomorrow for work ...
                      2. rrrd
                        rrrd 9 December 2013 23: 59 New
                        0
                        I don’t know how to argue with him either! I'm talking about Thomas, and I'm talking about Yerema!
                      3. Onyx
                        Onyx 10 December 2013 00: 06 New
                        -1
                        Quote: rrrd
                        I don’t know how to argue with him either! I'm talking about Thomas, and I'm talking about Yerema!

                        we just have different ideas about the purpose of missiles. therefore, it is difficult to come to an understanding.
                    2. Onyx
                      Onyx 10 December 2013 00: 04 New
                      0
                      I already wrote about all this in detail here. I see no reason to repeat
                    3. rrrd
                      rrrd 10 December 2013 00: 10 New
                      +1
                      Onyx

                      the class of rockets is completely different! you can understand it! Abandoned weight is different! how can i replace 1yars with 1 governor!
                      you mean what accuracy ... why accuracy !?
                    4. Onyx
                      Onyx 10 December 2013 00: 13 New
                      0
                      And why do you need to change the Voivode for the same rocket? Can you understand this? Who said that the Governor should be replaced by Governor 2? Why should we have a priori a class of heavy liquid rockets?
                    5. rrrd
                      rrrd 10 December 2013 00: 16 New
                      +1
                      The lady checked in her luggage:
                      Sofa,
                      Suitcase,
                      Bag,
                      The picture
                      Cart
                      Cardboard box
                      And a little dog.

                      They gave the lady at the station
                      Four green receipts
                      About baggage received:
                      Sofa,
                      Suitcase,
                      Bag,
                      Picture,
                      Basket,
                      Cardboard box
                      And a little dog.

                      Things are being taken to the platform.
                      Throw in an open carriage.
                      Done. Baggage Packed:
                      Sofa,
                      Suitcase,
                      Bag,
                      Picture,
                      Basket,
                      Cardboard box
                      And a little dog.

                      But as soon as the bell rang
                      A puppy got out of the car.
                      Grabbed at the station Dno:
                      Lost one place.
                      In fright, consider luggage:
                      Sofa,
                      Suitcase,
                      Bag,
                      Picture,
                      Basket,
                      Cardboard ...
                      - Comrades!
                      Where is the little dog?

                      Suddenly they see: standing at the wheels
                      Huge tousled dog.
                      Caught him - and in the luggage,
                      To where the bag was
                      Picture,
                      Basket,
                      Cardboard
                      Where before there was a little dog.

                      We arrived in the city of Zhytomyr.
                      Porter number fifteen
                      Luggage on a trolley:
                      Sofa,
                      Suitcase,
                      Bag,
                      The picture
                      Cart
                      Cardboard
                      And behind the little dog.

                      The dog will growl.
                      And the lady will shout:
                      - The robbers! The thieves! !
                      The dog is not of that breed!

                      She threw her suitcase
                      I shoved the sofa off with my foot
                      The picture
                      Cart
                      Cardboard ...
                      - Give me my little dog!

                      - Excuse me, mother At the station,
                      According to the baggage check
                      Received baggage from you:
                      Sofa,
                      Suitcase,
                      Bag,
                      The picture
                      Cart
                      Cardboard box
                      And a little dog.
                      But
                      During the journey
                      Dog
                      Could grow up!
  • studentmati
    studentmati 10 December 2013 01: 39 New
    -1
    Quote: Onyx
    therefore, there will be no problem replacing the Voivode.

    laughing
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Canep
    Canep 9 December 2013 09: 14 New
    +2
    There used to be such an expression "Offensive nuclear missile weapons". In essence, nuclear weapons cannot be offensive; after their use, there remains a lifeless territory to capture which does not make any sense, because it is impossible to live there. The Strategic Missile Forces is a purely defensive weapon, the presence of which knocks down the warlike spirit from those who are trying to threaten Russia.
    1. zennon
      zennon 9 December 2013 23: 24 New
      0
      There used to be such an expression "Offensive nuclear missile weapons"

      At one time, the Americans promoted the idea of ​​a "limited nuclear war." So this term refers to that time.
  • Dwarfik
    Dwarfik 9 December 2013 09: 21 New
    0
    Good Replacing - this is great, but generally would not tear the navel with all these replacements!
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 9 December 2013 09: 42 New
      +4
      quote-Thus, in the near future, three types of missile systems will remain in strategic missile forces: RT-2ПМ "Topol", RT-2ПМ2 "Topol-M" and RS-24 "Yars". At the same time, the share of new missiles will continue to grow.

      RT-2PM "Poplar"


      RT-2ПМ2 "Topol-M"



      RS-24 Yars
  • tchoni
    tchoni 9 December 2013 09: 45 New
    +2
    No, the navel will not tear, because its burden does not pull. But about the mobile complexes - it’s worth considering. In my opinion, launcher mobility justifies itself only in the case of nuclear submarines (it is possible to reduce the flight time). And in the case of a ground-based complex, the mine will still be more reliable. Especially if it was done in the mind and the security system was planned not by crooked ones.
    1. savarineko
      savarineko 9 December 2013 11: 04 New
      +1
      The location of the mine is known in advance to the enemy, and given the degree of deflection of American ballistic missiles, it is not difficult to destroy it with a first strike. Therefore, mobile complexes win in survivability in comparison with mine ones.
      1. rrrd
        rrrd 9 December 2013 12: 09 New
        +3
        and the deslocation sites of mobile complexes are known to them! Railways are needed, railways are full of roads like a web.
        1. Onyx
          Onyx 9 December 2013 19: 51 New
          +1
          Quote: rrrd
          and the deslocation sites of mobile complexes are known to them! Railways are needed, railways are full of roads like a web.

          Well, they may know the places of "deslakation", but mobile systems are mobile because they carry out combat duty not only in the places of "deslakation", but also in field positions. At the same time, 25% of mobile complexes are outside the places of "deslakation" in peacetime. So any disarming nuclear strikes lose all meaning. Retribution from our side is inevitable.
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 10 December 2013 14: 20 New
            +1
            three objections.
            Have you ever seen an ICBM launcher up close? - I report that this "crap" has a very decent size and, oddly enough, weight. All this very, very restricts the mobility of this complex (mud, slush, snow drifts). So the mobility of the complex is 100 km to the right + the same amount to the left. And the radius of destruction of a 150 kiloton warhead is still decent (unlike a railway platform, which can be rolled all over the country.) - this time.
            Due to its very specific appearance, tracking the movement of a given launcher (even from a satellite, and there are all sorts of different other direct and indirect methods, including agent-based) is quite easy. These are two.
            Arranging a launcher guard in a forest or field is one hundred times more difficult than in a mine. It does not even have to be mined. It is enough to simply shell from something more or less substantial. These are three.
            Something like this. Although I may be wrong.
      2. Ascetic
        Ascetic 9 December 2013 19: 32 New
        +8
        Quote: savarineko
        . No mine can withstand a direct hit by a warhead.

        Therefore, for destruction you need at least two, and that is not 50% guaranteed. This Dvorkin friend of Solomonov counted in order to support the idea of ​​focusing on solid-fuel mobile launchers. In fact, the methodology for assessing mine damage is completely different. Especially since field tests were carried out in Semipalatinsk of the "Argon" series. There is a film shot based on the results of tests, it’s only secret, there are some frames only in the public domain. There were specially built launchers for all types of our silo missiles at the test site. The machines themselves are installed in them. They were tested twice with full-scale nuclear explosions. For the third time, they tried to hit with conventional explosives, the equivalent explosion power of which corresponded to a nuclear one. Even paint did not fall in the mines. And the missiles were then successfully launched. There, it was determined that the KVO missile should be less than XNUMXm. For ICBMs, this is very difficult. For Axes with nuclear warheads, it is possible, but given their low speed, they are quite vulnerable to target air defense. Do not forget about the KAZ silos for warheads. There are other technical means.

        To calculate the depth of overcoming obstacles (concrete, soil) due to kinetic effects of a warhead an empirical relation was used for bunker guided heavy bombs



        where
        kn - coefficient depending on the quality of the material
        l - coefficient characterizing the relative influence of the shape of the projectile
        m is the mass of the warhead (kg)
        d - caliber (m)
        Vc - warhead velocity at the moment of impact (m /> s)
        a is the angle with respect to the normal
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 9 December 2013 19: 54 New
          +4
          That's right, Ascetic! The high vulnerability of silo-based ICBMs is a myth. This is the most stable component.
        2. clidon
          clidon 9 December 2013 21: 02 New
          +1
          A direct hit certainly can not stand it. The lid will simply evaporate even without any excess pressure. ) Therefore, an above-ground nuclear explosion (kilotons of 100-150) a modern mine (with a resistance of 100-200 atmospheres) can withstand 100-150 meters.
          It is the vulnerability of mines and the need to conduct a "retaliatory" strike in the face of a sharp increase in the accuracy of ammunition (CEP less than 100 meters) that led to the emergence of mobile systems.
          Of course, everything here is not so simple either - for a reliable defeat the enemy needs at least two warheads, and given the dense location of the mine complexes, the simultaneous approach and undermining of such an amount of enemy warheads is simply difficult - the explosion of one unit will prevent the undermining of the other.
          That is why in late Soviet missiles there was such attention to launching under the conditions of the action of damaging factors of nuclear weapons.
      3. zennon
        zennon 9 December 2013 23: 53 New
        0
        Quote: savarineko
        The location of the mine is known in advance to the enemy, and given the degree of deflection of American ballistic missiles, it is not difficult to destroy it with a first strike. Therefore, mobile complexes win in survivability in comparison with mine ones.

        Yes, their survivability does not matter at all! The flight time of amerovsky warheads is about 20 minutes. During this time, we will have time to send all our "goodies" 4-5 times!
    2. Shur
      Shur 9 December 2013 22: 16 New
      +1
      Do you know what an option with a secret mine "underground"? A bunch of "holes" connected under the ground, where they take them, where they stand, etc. It's a good topic, you can't see it from above, don't gouge it, automate everything, and no one knows where the "birdie" will fly. Surrender such a system China is planning, I heard about the concern of the "partners" about the "mole" activities of the Katayans .. Guess in which hole the "marmot" is sitting wassat
      1. clidon
        clidon 9 December 2013 22: 23 New
        +2
        Just half the country without pants will walk, and of course the idea is strong. )
        1. Shur
          Shur 9 December 2013 22: 49 New
          0
          Come on, the mines are full, to tie underground, though not immediately, really .. On the way, you can dig up different things ... You look at the pits in Yakutia .. :)
          1. clidon
            clidon 10 December 2013 05: 40 New
            +2
            You have an alternative underground reality. )
        2. Shur
          Shur 9 December 2013 23: 45 New
          +2
          Nah, in our society, without the color differentiation of pants, you can’t ... laughing
      2. mountain
        mountain 9 December 2013 22: 52 New
        0
        And, their case in the Moscow metro is not? Who knows, maybe this is the main secret.
        1. Shur
          Shur 9 December 2013 23: 04 New
          +1
          Yeah "government metro"laughing laughing soldier!!! And what? Just like a run-in .. So of course the scale of another is necessary and without beauty, simpler. Say for 15 years really. And it will continue to operate earlier, such a phased system will allow year after year to increase the stability of the Strategic Missile Forces and not only .. Trains are not needed there, platforms will go, mono rail can be, there is no wind there .. Everything can be simplified without sacrificing reliability. Plus a monorail can allow you to switch along vertical levels, reduce resistance, reduce leveling work ...
          1. mountain
            mountain 9 December 2013 23: 22 New
            +1
            Listen, can Alexander serve Ratsukha? If you are not late. And damn the Baltanuli secret. Yes, you're talking about technical features. YOUYOU surely have to wait for guests. And all Language.
            1. Shur
              Shur 9 December 2013 23: 26 New
              0
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGxhTNgyiLU Вот модель ;)
              1. Shur
                Shur 9 December 2013 23: 37 New
                +1
                Only I all the same for the suspension on the monorail .. There are advantages in that. Less drive power .. Convenience of installation. And of course there is hemorrhoids.
            2. Shur
              Shur 9 December 2013 23: 31 New
              0
              Language, memory ... belay then.. laughing Valery, everyone changed their minds before us, but who prevents us from expressing ideas and upholding them. The word is not a sparrow :)
              1. mountain
                mountain 9 December 2013 23: 46 New
                0
                Okay, monorail agrees so monorail. repeat I like it. wassat
                Our heads have always worked well, and I hope they won’t fail now.
                1. Shur
                  Shur 10 December 2013 00: 03 New
                  0
                  I just studied on electric transport :) My topic is a little .. I did something like work on an overhead monorail, using the example of a monorail technological line for the transportation of molten metal to pouring production "Cliveland Crane". Cool trolleys .. even skated .. It worked for more than 30 years, only three wire trolls let down, unreliable.
                  1. mountain
                    mountain 10 December 2013 00: 15 New
                    0
                    only three wire trolls failed, unreliable.
                    I thought that somewhere is not finalized. bully It is necessary to do something, with such a project one cannot but go up. angry
                    Alexander, thanks for the communication.)))
                    1. Shur
                      Shur 10 December 2013 00: 28 New
                      0
                      You too, however, it’s time to sleep ..
                  2. Shur
                    Shur 10 December 2013 00: 24 New
                    0
                    The masses here are of course wild, the weight of the Stiletto is written: 105600 kg :), but in the end everything is decided .. Of course you can and just the rail track, the speed will still be small, but what is the result. And the adversary is steamed out picking out and unauthorized entry is limited. And the different missiles there to undermine the tunnels are unlikely to fly through a multi-level system of dampers .. But you never know what can be thought up to neutralize.
      3. VADEL
        VADEL 10 December 2013 06: 55 New
        0
        We have such a strayat least with the union was. Where is it located? request. Somewhere negative Like this soldier
  • Regis
    Regis 9 December 2013 10: 05 New
    +4
    Quote: Canep
    There used to be such an expression "Offensive nuclear missile weapons". In essence, nuclear weapons cannot be offensive; after their use, there remains a lifeless territory to capture which does not make any sense, because it is impossible to live there. The Strategic Missile Forces is a purely defensive weapon, the presence of which knocks down the warlike spirit from those who are trying to threaten Russia.


    Not certainly in that way. A nuclear explosion is not an explosion at a nuclear power plant.
    If I don’t confuse anything, then after the explosion of nuclear weapons there is a rule of seven (deduced like experimentally) 7 hours after the explosion, the radiation level drops 10 times. After 7 * 7 = 49 hours, the radiation level drops 100 times. Etc. Of course, building houses in the epicenter of the explosion will only be possible in a couple of years, but the army will be able to get through there in a couple of weeks.
    1. max702
      max702 9 December 2013 12: 30 New
      0
      Yeah, missiles will fall. With nuclear weapons will be in the tundra, in deserts and other sparsely populated areas, what do you think are the goals of missiles in the guidance blocks? What will happen if a rocket gets into any nuclear power plant, or into the dam of a hydroelectric power station? And how does it end up in some kind of chemical plant, such objects that each of them will arrange an apocalypse on a separate territory, so that nuclear weapons themselves may not completely destroy everything, but the consequences of its application will not leave the chances of civilization ..
      1. Regis
        Regis 9 December 2013 14: 40 New
        0
        Not every city has nuclear power plants. And from the chem. factories and other infrastructure, there will be no special infection. Apocaoipsis in a given territory will certainly come, but not from chemical plants, but from a thermonuclear explosion.
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 9 December 2013 11: 21 New
    0
    So, of course, it pleases. But what will be delivered to the vacant rocket mines?
    1. clidon
      clidon 9 December 2013 13: 28 New
      0
      Some of the launchers are being replaced, most of them simply live out their lives before being sent to scrap (this is more true for mobile missiles) or later modernization.
  • aszzz888
    aszzz888 9 December 2013 11: 23 New
    0
    Data such as balm for the soul. And let them bite their backside in the west. "Every day is not Sunday".
  • Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 9 December 2013 11: 41 New
    +4
    The West has been and remains an unprincipled, cynical egoist. The United States is intensively developing new elements of missile defense, surrounding itself and its ally with a missile defense shield. And at the same time they scream about Russia's modernization of its nuclear missile potential. In the opinion of these "too smart" Western strategists, Russia should sit back and not take any measures against the aggressive actions of the American military. In the words of my commander: sirs, if you are so smart, why do not you build? But seriously, the Americans do not respect us. And what to take from them. Enemies, after all ...
  • Rus2012
    Rus2012 9 December 2013 14: 32 New
    +2
    in the near future, three types of missile systems will remain in strategic missile forces: RT-2ПМ "Topol", RT-2ПМ2 "Topol-M" and RS-24 "Yars".

    The author is cunning ...
    Heavy liquid will be removed only under the replacement of a new rocket with a rocket engine.
    Yes, and the design of a new BZHRK goes.
    And the author did not remember the R-26 "Rubezh" ...
    1. Onyx
      Onyx 9 December 2013 20: 01 New
      0
      Quote: Rus2012
      The author is cunning ...
      Heavy liquid will be removed only under the replacement of a new rocket with a rocket engine.
      Yes, and the design of a new BZHRK goes.
      And the author did not remember the R-26 "Rubezh" ...

      No decision was made on the grave ones, at least no one announced this. By BZHRK, too, so far only outline designs
      1. clidon
        clidon 9 December 2013 21: 11 New
        0
        A difficult decision has been made, but there is a fairly strong opposition from a number of military leaders supported by MIT and financiers. There isn’t enough money in general, of course ...
        1. Onyx
          Onyx 9 December 2013 21: 53 New
          0
          Quote: clidon
          The decision was made on the grave

          So far, only a draft design. No one announced the beginning of full-scale work
          1. Rus2012
            Rus2012 9 December 2013 22: 49 New
            +1
            Quote: Onyx
            No one announced the beginning of full-scale work

            Efremov, in a recent interview with the press before leaving the general, said that mass production had begun (apparently those structural elements that would not be subject to change during testing and LCI) ...
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 9 December 2013 22: 38 New
        +2
        Quote: Onyx
        No decision was made on the grave ones, at least no one announced this.

        Dear colleague, in what form would you like to see a solution?
        KVM, all decisions made of this kind are stamped and are not published in the media.

        Data on 2013 from open sources:
        Advanced heavy ICBM / OCD "Sarmat" - SS-X-30
        The project is a promising heavy intercontinental ballistic missile. ICBM development was set no later than June 2009 (according to an interview with the RSVN Commander N. Solovtsov, 10.06.2009). The development of the rocket is planned to be completed by the end of 2016 (source - Commander of the Strategic Missile Forces A. Shvaichenko, 16.12.2009). The goal of creating a new heavy missile is to replace the RS-20 / P-36 / SS-18 SATAN as part of the Strategic Missile Forces. The development of ICBMs is carried out by the Makeyev State Research Center (Miass) with the participation of NPO Mashinostroeniya (Reutov, source - Yesin V., 2012, tape.ru).
        According to fragmentary information at the end of 2010 - the beginning of 2011. it was planned to consider a draft (?) project of the complex and decide on the further development of ICBMs. The terms of reference for the development of ICBMs were approved in 2011 (source - Yesin V., 2012, tape.ru).
        The development of technical specifications for the Sarmat R&D project for the development of a promising missile complex with a liquid-propellant ICBM was carried out with the participation of the Central Research Institute No. 4 of the Ministry of Defense of Russia. In 2011, Avangard OJSC began the development of directive technology and a feasibility study for the manufacture of the TPK rocket body - these works are planned to be completed in 2012.
        The development of materials for a draft design of onboard equipment for the Sarmat R&D project in terms of prototyping units of angular velocity meters based on a wave solid-state gyroscope and the production of six prototypes of HTG were planned by the R&D Center for Automation and Instrumentation for January-April 2012.
        According to the Chinese news agency Xinhua (dated 05.05.2011/2012/2018) with reference to Interfax and the former chief of the Main Staff of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel-General Viktor Yesin (as of 2012 - consultant to the commander-in-chief of the Strategic Missile Forces), it is planned to deploy a new ICBM on combat duty since XNUMX, and the main developer of ICBMs is the Makeev State Regional Center (Miass). The production of ICBMs is planned by the cooperation of enterprises formed by the V. Makeev State Regional Center - i.e. Krasnoyarsk machine building and other plants (V. Esin, including XNUMX).
        On June 18, 2013, RIA Novosti reports that the construction of a full-scale model of the rocket will begin in 2014.

        A little higher, I have already given the last mention of "Sarmat" from 2Sep 2013.
        For more details, see here http://vpk-news.ru/articles/17289
        A hypothetical image of an early version of an ICBM project developed by the Makeev State Regional Center, which could form the basis of the Sarmat ROC, was published in 2005.
        More details - http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/index-507.html
        1. Onyx
          Onyx 9 December 2013 22: 50 New
          +1
          I mean, one cannot say with certainty that a liquid rocket is being created
          1. zennon
            zennon 9 December 2013 23: 10 New
            +1
            Quote: Onyx
            I mean, one cannot say with certainty that a liquid rocket is being created

            Can! So the commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel General Sergei Karakaev, believes that Russia will create this ICBM by 2018, and its payload (warhead) will be 5 tons, which is four times more than the solid-fuel Yars and Topol, created MIT. This, the military believes, will make it possible to place up to 10 false blocks on the rocket, which will significantly increase the ability to overcome missile defense. According to the general director of the Corporation Rosoboshemash, the former deputy minister of the space and rocket industry of the USSR Arthur Usenkov, Russia has been working on over the past year the creation of a new heavy liquid intercontinental ballistic missile designed to replace the Voevoda silo-based ICBMs on combat duty. As expected, the new ICBM will be able to "ignore" the missile defense "cordons" that are being actively built by the US and NATO along the perimeter of Russia's borders, breaking through any existing and promising missile defense systems. Moreover, according to the estimates of specialists, the “safety margin” of this technology will last at least until the 50s of this century.
  • mithridate
    mithridate 9 December 2013 14: 54 New
    +1
    The West must always be in good shape, and somehow relaxed since the collapse of the Union
  • Siberian
    Siberian 9 December 2013 16: 52 New
    0
    An interesting fact is that the foreign military and specialists who are watching the update of the Russian strategic missile forces, don't panic.
    It’s right that they don’t panic (think sensibly). The most that is to replace a more advanced technique. And on the other hand, some of us are very worried and nervous about our rearmament to a newer one (let them drink valerian). Although they themselves are rearming, and do not pay attention to anyone. Some just sleep and see that we are full of old things in arms and technology. PS You can say more, but it seems that is enough.
  • Rif
    Rif 9 December 2013 17: 13 New
    +1
    "An important feature of the foreign reaction to the rearmament of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces is the fact that any statements made by experts, journalists or people interested in this topic will remain private opinion." - which they have every right to wipe themselves off.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 9 December 2013 17: 40 New
    +1
    Having paraphrased the "eternally living" classic, are we going the right way, comrades? Aren't we too carried away by Solomonov's missile ideology, exchanging all our ICBMs for MIT products? The Americans were openly afraid of our Voevoda, they were very nervous about the BR railway complexes, and looked with horror at the Typhoon. Because so much effort and made that we would destroy them in the first place. But about this whole poplar family (including Yars and Bulava), there is an amazing calmness, if not approval. If I am not mistaken, in the latest strategic offensive arms, even restrictions on the areas of deployment of ground complexes have already been lifted. Like, ride wherever you want. The only thing that bothered them was the last test launch at a reduced range.
    1. clidon
      clidon 9 December 2013 18: 04 New
      0
      I can tell why the Americans were horrified by the "Voivode". They understood that in a conflict situation, the side with a relatively vulnerable (silo) complex with 10 warheads on board would be afraid that it could exchange its 10 warheads for 1-2 enemy warheads if he (the enemy) strikes the first blow. And accordingly, proceeding from these fears, it will strike first, start the third world war. That is, they considered heavy multi-unit ICBMs dangerous precisely from the point of view of stability.
      So, for example, they had nothing against any heavy missiles with RGChin on submarines, or any number of missile defense missile defense penetration means.
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 9 December 2013 22: 57 New
        0
        Quote: clidon
        And accordingly, based on these fears, it will strike first, begin the third world war. That is, they considered heavy multi-unit ICBMs dangerous from the point of view of stability.

        Dear colleague, the essence of the Military Doctrine of Russia, that old, new, is that when the first strike weapons of silos arrive (they fly at least 30 minutes from the moment of launch) - they will already be empty ... That is launches will take place in the oncoming or reciprocal-oncoming strike (or the most reliable option is the preventive one). For all mine ICBMs are in 2-4minutes ready.
        1. clidon
          clidon 10 December 2013 05: 44 New
          0
          In fact, a long time ago there was a rejection of the "reciprocal" strike. To ensure the use of the Strategic Missile Forces forces in the "new" conditions, the "Perimeter" combat control system was created. And yes, the application time of ICBMs, believe me, is much more than 2-4 minutes. Especially considering the conditions of combat control.
    2. Onyx
      Onyx 9 December 2013 20: 11 New
      0
      Quote: rudolff
      If I am not mistaken, in the latest START, even the restrictions on the areas of deployment of soil complexes have already been lifted. Like, ride wherever you want.

      And what, someone asked them to restrict us in the new agreement or not to limit the area of ​​patrol areas of the PGRK? There are no restrictions, because it was not Yeltsin or Gorbachev who was in power when START-3 was signed. In addition, if the Americans are calm about mobile Topol, then why did they achieve the limitation of the PGRK patrol areas in the previous treaty?
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 9 December 2013 20: 25 New
        +1
        Onyx, what does it mean that someone asked them or not? This is a contract, which means that the opinions of all signatories are taken into account. If the Americans did not insist on restricting areas, then this was not important for them.
        1. Onyx
          Onyx 9 December 2013 20: 37 New
          0
          The contract implies, first of all, acceptance of the terms of the other party. Their integrity will not change anything if we stand our ground.
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 9 December 2013 23: 03 New
        0
        Quote: Onyx
        In addition, if the Americans are calm about mobile Topol, then why did they achieve the limitation of the PGRK patrol areas in the previous treaty?

        They are not calm ... They would very much like to restrict them (and even hang a "warning bell" of the location). They were simply told in the negotiations - do you want to leave the previous restrictions? You are welcome. But at the same time, you will have to impose, among other things, on yourself (nuclear submarines with Tridents) similar restrictions on the patrol area of ​​mobile assets with nuclear weapons ... Questions and requirements have been removed ...
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 9 December 2013 18: 16 New
    +2
    Not from a better life is now more modernization of missiles but the development of truly new models. All this is an attempt to quickly plug those gaps that are in case of EBN (remember not an unkind word by night am ) formed in the missile shield of the Russian Federation.
  • anatoliy73
    anatoliy73 9 December 2013 18: 23 New
    0
    That’s what I really don’t like - that of this component of the poplar is monoblock, and the yars has a maximum of 6 BB! The Governor then had a dozen!
  • andr327
    andr327 9 December 2013 21: 11 New
    +2
    As for the type: we need both heavy and poplar families, and RSD would not be returned. All have pros and cons.
    But the pace of rearmament is somehow not inspiring. The Yarsi have not yet set up on the base (I hope that after all two regiments will stand up this year, though in what composition, as Vesti told Novosibirsk, only two divisions were brought to Novosibirsk). If they rise to the maximum, then only 18 pieces (which is not a fact), and the next year not 22 complexes will be installed, but 22 missiles are supplied to the troops (the missilemen will understand). The military is trying, but replacing poplars at this rate will take 8-10 years.
    They talk a lot about missiles, but about launch complexes?
    But we hope and believe!
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 9 December 2013 23: 22 New
      0
      Quote: andr327
      Yars have not yet stood on the database

      Who told you that?
      From Wiki - as part of the Strategic Missile Forces as of June 1 of 2013 of the year there were 395 missile systems capable of carrying 1 303 nuclear warheads, including the Strategic Missile Forces were: 58 heavy missiles R-36МУТТХ and Р-36МXNN 2, Satan), 18 missiles UR-70Н УТТХ (SS-100), 19 mobile soil complex RT-171ПМ "Topol" (SS-2), 25 complexes RT-60ПМ2 "Topol-M" X-base mine () , 2 mobile systems RT-27ПМ18 "Topol-M" (SS-2) [2] and 18 mobile systems PC-24 "Yars".

      Let's start with the fact that Topol-M is almost the same Yars-24. And the issue of re-equipping many of those standing on the TM database on TRB is a simple question, and it will continue to be so.
      22 rockets per year are already capable of launching Vodkinsk, and will still be upgraded to 30 level. And about 22 if this is a complex, not even a question. In the current state of affairs in the worst case, it’s 20 full-blooded complex (2 rockets, let's say to the reserve due to non-deployed).
      1. Onyx
        Onyx 9 December 2013 23: 37 New
        0
        Quote: Rus2012
        Let's start with the fact that Topol-M is almost the same Yars-24. And the issue of re-equipping many of those standing on the TM database on TRB is a simple question, and it will continue to be so.

        Dear colleague, after all, Topol-M only finished deploying last year. Nobody is going to replace them with Yars. Yars just replaces Poplars without M
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 10 December 2013 00: 03 New
          0
          Quote: Onyx
          Dear colleague, after all, Topol-M only finished deploying last year. Nobody is going to replace them with Yars. Yars just replaces Poplars without M

          TM began to deploy under the restrictions 1carrier = 1head. Now there is no limit. Consequently, wherever needed TM will be re-equipped in Yars. those. 3-4 BB ...
          1. Onyx
            Onyx 10 December 2013 00: 18 New
            0
            Why change the relatively new Poplar-M, when you need to change the old Poplars, which are twice as many as Topol-M, and whose resource is running out?
            1. Rus2012
              Rus2012 10 December 2013 11: 18 New
              0
              Quote: Onyx
              Why change the relatively new Poplar-M, when you need to change the old Poplars, which are twice as many as Topol-M, and whose resource is running out?

              Installed TM-just retrofit to Yars-24 and that's it! It is not long and not expensive, there is not much change ...
              And the old Poplar or "Poplar with a dot" - will be replaced by Yars after the development of resources.
              1. clidon
                clidon 10 December 2013 12: 40 New
                0
                This is what information is based on the statement about the simple conversion of "Topol M" into "Yars"?
  • Urri
    Urri 9 December 2013 21: 30 New
    -3
    Quote: clidon
    and there are still submarines.


    Unfortunately, SSBN time has irretrievably gone. From day to day, the ocean will be hosted by underwater drones-fighters. With minesweepers, the process is already underway
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 9 December 2013 23: 25 New
      0
      Quote: Urri
      From day to day, the ocean will be hosted by underwater drones-fighters.

      And in inland waters, at least, how ?;))))))))))))
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 11 December 2013 20: 50 New
        0
        About inland water bodies with strategic nuclear forces .... This concept was considered in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and .... an official sharp negative answer was given ...
        Here is the answer of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation .....
        You are proposing to covertly place encapsulated autonomous strategic missiles (SAM) of the Bulava and Topol type on the inaccessible territory of Siberia in the inland waters and offshore of the Russian Federation to increase the potential to deter Russian strategic nuclear forces and reduce the significance of the missile defense system being created in the USA.
        In essence of the proposals submitted, the following should be noted:
        1. Inland waters of Siberia and the sea shelf for a long time (up to 5 months a year) to cover! ice, as a result, the proposed weapon system is practically not combat ready.
        2. To confirm the performance and reliability of ZARS, flight tests should be carried out for standard conditions from inland waters, where ZARS combat duty is offered. Carrying out such tests will reveal the true purpose of ZARS - the creation of an uncontrolled means of delivery of nuclear weapons, which will practically lead to Russia's unilateral withdrawal from the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive weapons, according to which:
        - each of the Parties bases deployed launchers of ICBMs only on the bases of ICBMs;
        -Each Party installs deployed SLBM launchers only in submarines equipped with SLBM launchers.
        Without carrying out the necessary volume of flight tests to confirm the reliability of ZARS, their placement in areas of combat duty for the purpose of possible combat use is unacceptable.
        3. The basing of ZARS with nuclear combat equipment in the inland waters of Siberia should exclude any navigation in these areas. In addition, to ensure nuclear safety, alienation of the coastal zone will be required, which will become a clear unmasking sign of ZARS. All this will lead not to cost savings, but to damage the country in peacetime.
        4. The deployment of ZARS proposed by the author, in addition to the internal reservoirs of Russia anywhere in the world ocean, without technical maintenance and routine maintenance, without combat control, is absurd.
        5. The author fairly assesses SARS with poorly controlled weapons in comparison with the existing strategic nuclear forces. Moreover, the author does not exclude the possibility of seizing control of ZARS by terrorist groups, increasing the risk of human self-destruction. This, according to the author, should be a source of forceful pressure on the world community to change the policy towards Russia. This approach, proposed by the author, is practically blackmail of the world community. As a result of such blackmail, Russia will appear before the world community as an aggressor, which will lead not to an increase in the political weight of Russia, but to its complete isolation.
        Based on the foregoing, the proposed method of deploying strategic missiles does not have practical utility, is harmful and dangerous for Russia.
        A source:
        http://www.oborona.gov.ru/pages/330/#zars
  • valeriymotors
    valeriymotors 9 December 2013 22: 33 New
    0
    Eh, we would have a couple of yards, or at least poplars to whip the nerves of the Geyropei shushore !!! laughing
  • darksoul
    darksoul 9 December 2013 22: 59 New
    +1
    while comrades are not making enough effort, when angry speeches and panic tantrums pour, it means everything is so, we are on the right track
  • mountain
    mountain 9 December 2013 23: 08 New
    0
    From what they read they take, but how will it actually be? Really, someone will press the button. Although, I'm asking, the striped ones did it already. Now China is a "pig in a poke". Let's only hope for Russian ingenuity.
  • studentmati
    studentmati 10 December 2013 01: 27 New
    +1
    You shouldn't just dwell on nuclear weapons. Russia has always been forced to work not only in the "catch up and overtake" mode, but also had to look for an "asymmetrical answer."

    Climate and tectonic weapons have long been underway. Nikola Tesla is also an interesting scientist! You can find many options and examples ...
  • Evkur
    Evkur 10 December 2013 02: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: zennon
    short-range missile, more modern warheads,

    The short active section is a consequence of the impossibility of "solid propellants" to play with thrust. They are trying to pass off a shortage for dignity. Warheads are very light in their modernity. These pukals actively pushed by Solomonov will not save the country. As for the Tu-160, then a few of them on the fly. The reason is the loss. equipment and skilled labor for the production and repair of turbofan NK-32.Without a powerful liquid carrier, we are nothing ...
    That's what you need!


    I completely agree, my grandfather served in the military service division, his opinion - they will remove "squash" (he called them that way) from combat duty and put "cucumbers" - marinate mother Russia))
  • Agent 008
    Agent 008 10 December 2013 02: 35 New
    0
    They (the west) are calm, because they know that if a nuclear outbreak begins, pi ... q will come not only to them, but also to us!
  • Power
    Power 10 December 2013 04: 06 New
    0
    Do you seriously think that our so-called supreme commanders will order a retaliatory or preventive strike: on their accounts in banks, property, and families living behind the hill?