Military Review

Russian global strike

133
Our country needs effective military tools to counter a terrorist war.


Russia can today create a system similar to the American rapid global strike. To do this, it is necessary to correctly formulate its tasks and determine the place in the general armament system. The Russian global strike will significantly increase the defense capability of our country, as well as to a certain extent the threshold for the transition to the use of nuclear weapons. weapons.

The terrorist war, initiated and supported by external forces, has been waged against Russia for a long time.

The US government set an example of the correct response to threats of this kind as early as 2007, when Congress approved the concept of a quick global strike. In accordance with it, in the event of a threat of an armed attack on the United States or American objects, as well as citizens abroad, the American armed forces should in the shortest possible time launch a rocket attack of high power and accuracy at any point on the globe in order to neutralize the danger.

Russia has strategic cruise missiles in non-nuclear equipment. These include missiles for submarines of the "Caliber" type and air-based X-555. Judging by media reports, a new non-nuclear cruise air-launched missile X-101 has also been adopted. Tactical and technical data of these missiles are not inferior to the US, and for a number of indicators, in particular in terms of firing range, are far superior. Thus, the X-555 missile firing range, again according to media reports, is about two thousand kilometers, and the newest X-101 is more than five thousand, with the prospect of an increase to ten thousand.

According to military experts, the Tu-160 is able to receive up to 12 of such missiles, and the Tu-95 MS - up to eight on an external sling. The combat load of the Tu-22М3 can amount to four cruise missiles. Judging by the published data, it is possible to deploy sea-based cruise missiles up to 32 on submarines Yasen.

Thus, Russia has quite modern models of strategic non-nuclear weapons and is capable of having its own system of global strike, similar to the American one.

Appropriate tasks

In determining the goals of creating such a Russian system of global strike, it is necessary to correctly select the threats for which it should be created to parry. Judging by the exercises, the United States is creating its own system of rapid global strike in order to be able to defeat any country and force it to surrender on American terms by delivering massive strikes with high-precision conventional weapons. Russia is not going to act in such ways. Analysis of the existing military threats for our country shows that it is advisable to assign the following tasks to the Russian system of a similar purpose:

Russian global strike1. Implementing strategic non-nuclear deterrence with the threat of causing unacceptable damage to a potential aggressor.

2. Disorganization and destruction of terrorist organizations and other transnational criminal structures that are sources of threats to the national security of Russia and its allies.

3. The defeat of objects in the operations of multinational forces conducted by a UN mandate.

The mechanism of strategic non-nuclear deterrence is based on the principle of the possibility of causing a potential aggressor of such damage that exceeds the likely gain in the event of the achievement of the ultimate goals of aggression, mainly in the economic sphere.

The targets of strikes in this case are enterprises that are critically important for the enemy’s economy, as well as various objects that are dangerous from an environmental point of view: nuclear power plants, dams, chemical enterprises, scientific and other nuclear centers and enterprises where work is done with large amounts of radioactive materials, and also hazardous chemical and biological substances.

The defeat of such backbone economic objects will lead to the collapse of the most important sectors of the economy of the aggressor for a relatively long time. And the destruction of environmentally hazardous facilities will cause large-scale contamination and flooding that will make large areas unfit for habitation, like in Chernobyl or Fukushima.

In the case of neutralization of a large-scale military threat, casting doubt on the very existence of the Russian state, the main instrument of deterrence is strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. Therefore, non-nuclear strategic deterrence is advisable to carry out in the event of threats of a relatively small local nature, the scale of a local war. Such conflicts can, most likely, be unleashed against Russia's close allies, and then be drawn into this conflict. Its initiator, judging by the experience of the past decades, can become a medium or even small in size and potential state that will count on the support of one of the largest geopolitical players.

The threat that Russia will cause unacceptable damage to this state without resorting to nuclear weapons will prove to be a weighty deterrent. The number of targets may be relatively small - from several units to two or three dozen. Their location is well known, since they are stationary. Therefore, it is possible to prepare all the initial data for strikes in advance. Only artificially created changes in the arrangement of elements of such objects and the surrounding relief, carried out as part of the operational camouflage measures in preparation for war, may need to be refined. They must be identified by means of intelligence.

Such objects, as a rule, have powerful air defense. Therefore, their defeat is advisable to carry out strategic cruise missiles.

The task of disorganizing and destroying terrorist organizations, as well as transnational criminal structures that are sources of threats to the national security of Russia and its allies, can become one of the most important and most relevant in modern conditions. Actually, over the past 20 years, ensuring the integrity and indivisibility of Russia as a state has been the main task of our Armed Forces and special services.

The targets for strategic non-nuclear weapons in the structure of terrorist organizations can be attributed mainly to fairly large objects, on whose territory a large number of militants and their commanders are located, as well as the location of persons from among the leaders of the operational unit. These are, in particular, camps for the training and rest of militants, the areas of deployment of their large formations that solve the tasks of retaining certain territories, places of storage and handicraft production of weapons and ammunition.

According to international law, Russia has every reason to strike at bases and camps for training militants, control centers for terrorist organizations located in the territory of other states if they do not want or can not stop their activities on their territory with their own forces. This is especially true if countries that host terrorists use them as military force against Russia or its allies.

The number of targets for strategic non-nuclear weapons in the structure of terrorist organizations is small and is measured in units.

Their location is also relatively stable, so that all the initial data for strikes against such objects can be prepared in advance. However, they can be well disguised and, if they are detected, they are quickly abandoned by the militants. In this regard, the time of the strike must be chosen very carefully. Therefore, the main task is to identify periods of concentration of the largest number of representatives of the leadership, command, advisers and representatives of external support structures of a terrorist organization. In terms of duration, the maximum concentration of such figures on one of the objects can be on average from several hours to a day or more. This places extremely high demands on the intelligence system.

The destruction of objects in the operations of a multinational force under a UN mandate should be carried out according to appropriate plans with a clear target indication from the intelligence system of the coalition group. The number of objects to be hit will be determined by the allocated weapon resource, which will be coordinated at the highest international level.

Full combat system

It is absolutely obvious that the Russian global strike should be a full-fledged combat system, including, in addition to the actual strike components, the intelligence and observation subsystem, command posts and communications, as well as comprehensive support.

Its combat strength and strength should be calculated on the basis of meeting certain criteria. The most important of them are:

1. Average reaction time. It consists of the time of detecting the fact of the need to influence the object, making decisions and setting tasks for forces, in particular, preparing and entering flight missions for cruise missiles and delivering weapons to the target. The reaction of the combat system should be faster than the possibility of withdrawal from the object of destruction. Of the listed potential objects of the Russian global strike system, various terrorist organizations and illegal armed groups will require the highest efficiency for their defeat. The required reaction time can be up to 12 hours. Based on the fact that it takes up to four to six hours to deliver a weapon to a target for a range of about 3000 – 5000 kilometers, no more than six to eight hours remain for the entire exploration and control cycle. The bulk of this time will be spent on the work of the intelligence system and the preparation of flight missions for cruise missiles.

2. The power of the impact on the target, which is determined by the quantity and quality of ammunition delivered to it and the accuracy of their hit. From the analysis of the nature of the objects of impact of the Russian system of global strike, it follows that the basis of its strike components must be strategic non-nuclear cruise missiles, as well as their carriers. The number of rocket weapons allocated to destroy a specific object must ensure its destruction. The experience of the combat use of Tomahawk missiles and estimates based on it show that to defeat an object of the type “medium enterprise” or “airfield” it is required from 8 – 10 to 15 – 20 cruise missiles, taking into account possible counteraction of air defense forces and weapons . The required expenditure of these weapons to defeat an area target of the “camp of terrorists” with the destruction of up to 70 percent of the personnel in it can range from 4 – 5 to 10 – 12 missiles.

The basis of the intelligence subsystem should be a space system using various reconnaissance satellites. This follows from the requirement of global intelligence. Their number and viewing band of each will serve the purpose of providing observation of any fragment of the earth's surface important for Russia regions of the world with a frequency of at least once every two to three hours. At the same time, the reliability of identifying and classifying potential targets of destruction must be at least 80 – 90 percent. Such indicators can be achieved through the integration of intelligence tools, including promising, equipped with hyperspectral analysis equipment.

An extremely important function of the reconnaissance system should be the provision of basic geodetic data for the development of flight missions for cruise missiles.

The achieved accuracy of determining the location of the Russian GLONASS system completely ensures the withdrawal of cruise missiles to the target area for the further successful operation of its homing head.

The required number of weapons and their carriers is determined by the volume of fire tasks that can be assigned to the Russian system of global strike. The total required number of cruise missiles, taking into account their repeated use for reconstructed or unaffected objects to solve the problem of strategic non-nuclear deterrence, can be estimated in 2500 – 3000 units. For other tasks - significantly less.

The required number of carriers is determined by the required composition of the salvo, which in the first strike when solving the problem of strategic non-nuclear deterrence can be estimated in 800 – 1200 missiles. This will allow to destroy or disable the order of 40 – 60 objects.

Existing strategic and long-range combat personnel aviation (subject to modernization of the air fleet with the possibility of using strategic non-nuclear missiles) it can use in the first strike from 400 to 800 or more cruise missiles, depending on the allocated resource and combat stability of the aviation group.

The remaining missiles must be launched from submarines and surface ships. The open source data on the shipbuilding program of Russia allows a rough estimate of the maximum possible salvo of sea-based cruise missiles in 250 – 300 units.

Would significantly increase the opportunities fleet to solve the problems of strategic non-nuclear deterrence, the modernization of heavy missile submarine cruisers (TRPK SN) of Project 941 into carriers of strategic cruise missiles. The Americans did similar with part of their Ohio-class submarines. From a comparison of the size of the Ohio, each of which has up to 150 cruise missiles, and our TRNK SN, it can be assumed that the latter will accommodate, according to rough estimates, up to 200–250 cruise missiles. Three surviving submarines could use from 600 to 750 missiles in a salvo. Thus, the Russian Navy could use up to 1000 cruise missiles in the first salvo, which would be enough to cause unacceptable damage to the enemy’s economy.

The most important condition for building a Russian global strike system is the creation of a subsystem for operational development, commissioning and updating of flight missions for cruise missiles. Tasks should be prepared in a period not exceeding three hours. This is a rather complicated procedure, coupled with the choice of an expedient flight path for these missiles to bypass the enemy’s air defense zones, selecting correction terrain areas and entering necessary data into the rocket, creating and entering the target’s “portrait” into the homing head. At such times, this can only be done using the electronic terrain mapping system on a global scale and updating the data sets in real time.

An analysis of the minimum necessary composition of the Russian global strike system shows that its creation is quite feasible in the near future. Among the priority areas of its formation should include:

1. Building up a global space reconnaissance system with ensuring periodicity of viewing important for Russia regions of the world at least once every two to three hours and integrating reconnaissance facilities, including promising, equipped with hyperspectral analysis equipment.

2. Creation of a subsystem for operational development, entry and updating of flight missions for cruise missiles based on the deployment of an electronic terrain mapping system on a global scale, providing for the updating of arrays of these data in real time.

3. Procurement of at least 2500 – 3000 non-nuclear strategic cruise missiles with the deployment of production facilities for the operational replenishment of the spent weapons.

4. Modernization of the fleet of strategic and long-range aviation to give it the possibility of using strategic non-nuclear missiles.

5. Modernization of the 941 TRPK SN into carriers of strategic non-nuclear cruise missiles.

Such a very incomplete and relatively inexpensive set of measures will allow Russia to receive in the medium term its own system of global strike, which will fully meet its requirements.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
133 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. AVV
    AVV 22 January 2014 15: 14
    +44
    We need a global strategic strike system, it’s only necessary to create the necessary number of carriers for it !!! And where to simply upgrade !!! So that no one leaves the answer and feels safe anywhere !!! But the range of the Kyrgyz Republic needs to be increased from 5000 km to 10000 !!! So that our strategic missile carriers patrolling in one end of the world, could bear a blow to anywhere in the world !!!
    1. Denis
      Denis 22 January 2014 15: 20
      +24
      Quote: AVV
      We need a global strategic strike system, it’s only necessary to create the necessary number of carriers for it !!! And where to simply upgrade !!! So that no one leaves the answer and feels safe anywhere !!! But the range of the Kyrgyz Republic needs to be increased from 5000 km to 10000 !!! So that our strategic missile carriers patrolling in one end of the world, could bear a blow to anywhere in the world !!!

      It is also urgent to increase the number of missile carriers themselves, both at sea and in the air.
      1. A.YARY
        A.YARY 22 January 2014 15: 48
        +11
        QUOTE
        1. Implementing strategic non-nuclear deterrence with the threat of causing unacceptable damage to a potential aggressor.

        2. Disorganization and destruction of terrorist organizations and other transnational criminal structures that are sources of threats to the national security of Russia and its allies.

        3. Defeat of facilities in operations of multinational forces conducted
        Someone actually believes that there are people in our power structure who are able to immediately decide on such a blow ?!
        Maybe someone will provide an example?
        I am extremely doubtful about the ability to instantly and accurately set myself the priority of the country (in the sense of the people) before my selfish interests among those in power.
        And here are examples of this darkness.

        But "containment" in the understanding of the current temporary workers is, it is stupid to have weapons and sell them.
        1. optimist
          optimist 22 January 2014 17: 01
          .
          Quote: A.YARY
          Someone actually believes that there are people in our power structure who are able to immediately decide on such a blow ?!

          Exactly the same thought arose in me when I read this "Manilovism". Vovan safely "wiped off" when the Americans drowned the Kursk. A point will play for him to press the "button" when a serious mess begins. This is not to drive "timid Georgians" in 2008. He promised to hang Saakashvili for "nuts", but the "masters" from Washington pulled it ...
          1. SRC P-15
            SRC P-15 22 January 2014 17: 42
            +22
            Quote: optimist
            Vovan successfully "rubbed off" when the Americans "Kursk" drowned

            What do you think he should have done? Start a nuclear war? You will recall in what position the country was at that time, and what our army was like. What was the answer? Arguing is easy, but making decisions is much more difficult. Yes, and we do not know what really happened. There is a lot of politics involved.
            1. optimist
              optimist 22 January 2014 18: 41
              -9
              Quote: СРЦ П-15
              You will recall in what position the country was at that time, and what our army was like.

              What does the army have to do with it? In the summer of 1941, she was also not in the best shape. And today you don't even need to fight with us: it is enough to "drop" a barrel of oil below 50-60 bucks, and in 2-3 months the faithful putinoids will drain their idol like shit in the toilet. Just in case, I remind everyone who suffers from sclerosis: almost 23 years ago, the USSR collapsed without a single shot, despite the strongest army in the world. Not today or tomorrow, the neighbors will overthrow the Janek and the scenario of 100 years ago is guaranteed to us ...
              1. BOB48
                BOB48 22 January 2014 18: 59
                +9
                justify your nickname! bully
              2. Nick
                Nick 22 January 2014 19: 52
                +7
                And you are an Optimist, a great pessimist ...
                1. optimist
                  optimist 22 January 2014 20: 07
                  +10
                  Quote: Nick
                  And you are an Optimist, a great pessimist ...

                  "Who is a pessimist? He is a well-informed optimist !!!" laughing
                  1. Nick
                    Nick 22 January 2014 22: 25
                    +4
                    Quote: optimist
                    "Who is a pessimist? He is a well-informed optimist !!!"

                    Good joke. But even a pessimist and optimist, with an equal level of awareness, differ in their attitude to reality ...
              3. Wellych
                Wellych 22 January 2014 23: 46
                +4
                Damn, it just so turns out. And what will happen if you lift a barrel of oil up to 300? And Yanek plant a neighbor in the form of a feral western Ukraine? Which scenario will then be played out? 200 year old?
            2. Tartary
              Tartary 22 January 2014 19: 44
              +16
              Quote: optimist
              Vovan safely "wiped off" when the Americans drowned the Kursk. A point will play for him to press the "button" when a serious mess begins.

              Quote: СРЦ П-15
              What do you think he should have done? Start a nuclear war? You will remember what position the country was at that time.


              It is better to remember how much and why the Americans then "forgiven" Russia economically ...
              Plus, how much did they provide free financial assistance ...
              Plus, what no one is still telling us about.

              Yes. I had to make excuses to the people of the country and the relatives of the victims, but who knows, maybe just because of the will of Putin today you, I and the rest, continue to fumble your point of view in the net, and do not rot in dumps ...
              1. optimist
                optimist 22 January 2014 20: 17
                +5
                Quote: Tartary
                you, me and the rest, continue to fuss your point of view in the net, and do not rot in dumps ...

                Maybe so ... But do not you think that a country like Russia is appropriate to betray its dead sailors for American loot ??? If this happened near the USA with their boat, the Americans would have rolled us into a pancake ...
                1. PValery53
                  PValery53 22 January 2014 21: 27
                  +3
                  And why did not our "pancake roll" at least the submarine that drowned our nuclear submarine "Kursk"?! .. - So, there were such warriors, there were them at all! ..- Or looked back at unworthy politicians?! ..
                  1. max702
                    max702 22 January 2014 23: 49
                    +2
                    It was not stupid, it was not in vain that the entire northern fleet ironed the water area for several hours, as it turned out without much success, which seemed to hint at the real state of affairs in the troops and in the navy in particular, and then there was a call from Washington and in a heartfelt voice they said well that they had played enough ? Couldn't? Couldn't .. Yes, tragedy, but is it worth pressing the buttons and the whole world to dust? Here Vovan decided not, and for this case he knocked out what he could from his "friends". How was it really found out oh, how not soon ..
                2. SV
                  SV 25 January 2014 17: 22
                  0
                  what a stubborn stupidity, no matter how you explain it and do not chew - "genius" rushing ...........
              2. PValery53
                PValery53 22 January 2014 21: 18
                +1
                You speak the terrible background of events, similar to the truth ...
              3. BIGLESHIY
                BIGLESHIY 23 January 2014 06: 40
                0
                It is better to remember how much and why the Americans then "forgiven" Russia economically ...

                This is what they forgave us, let me know? Yankees do not forgive anyone !!!
                Plus, how much did they provide free financial assistance ...

                What help? Gratis? Yes, we are paying them off for everything. Remember what our Avniuki in the government of the Stab. Fund invested in, are they not in American waste paper (supposedly securities)?
                Plus, what no one is still telling us about.

                Probably threw dough on unknown accounts of famous people?
                Yes. Before the people of the country and the relatives of the victims had to make excuses

                Yeah, we heard these excuses, supposedly the submarine exploded by itself (or the fault was in the entire crew, as some "experts" said) and the crew died instantly, although Dmitry Kolesnikov's posthumous notes say that the crew was alive and was waiting for help, and these $ yki took the ships away from the area where the submarine was located and ordered to wait until everything was solved by itself. And the acoustics of the nearby ships heard Morse code (survivors knocked on the hull of the boat) asking for salvation, but the authorities said that these were rumors and speculation. Here is an excuse from them freaks.
                but who knows, maybe precisely because of the will of Putin today you, I and the others, continue to claw your point of view in the net, and do not rot in dumps ...

                I prefer to rot in dumps and not for the last trembling slag in the net;
                1. Tartary
                  Tartary 24 January 2014 18: 41
                  0
                  Quote: BIGLESHIY
                  I prefer to rot in dumps and not for the last trembling slag in the net;

                  U-bye-bye-bye ... Do not drive the wave, my dear, sitting in a crowd in a cesspool ...)))
            3. tomcat117
              tomcat117 22 January 2014 20: 01
              +2
              In my opinion, the deaths of the Kursk and Novorosiysk have similar scenarios. The USSR at that time was more powerful, but nothing in response followed.
              I agree with SRPTs-15 about the Kursk, but if there was anything, everything was carried out exclusively at the highest level. It’s a pity, but we have to admit that ours got lost and killed both ships and people.
            4. Vasily T.
              Vasily T. 23 January 2014 03: 16
              -2
              It’s bad when human lives are written off under big politics. He wrote off those whom the constitution was supposed to protect.
              1. Alexander Romanov
                Alexander Romanov 23 January 2014 07: 50
                +1
                Quote: Vasily T.
                . He wrote off those whom the constitution was supposed to protect.

                If he had defended them then, now I wouldn’t have had you gone. There was just ashes on the planet, although I do not rule out that someone would have survived and walked among the ruins now in search of a piece of bread.
                1. Vasily T.
                  Vasily T. 24 January 2014 03: 19
                  -1
                  Yes of course. Watching how to resolve the situation. I would look at your answers if one of your relatives were there. I don’t know about you, but I am against such a situation. When the truth is hidden from the people, this is a crime. He could directly say that the boat was sunk, but due to the fact that the country is in full ... we can’t answer. For families of the dead, this would be true, albeit difficult, but true.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. kind
            kind 22 January 2014 19: 30
            +6
            And what would you do at the place of Vova ??? Yes, even in 2000. Hind thoughts are all strong.
            1. Army1
              Army1 22 January 2014 19: 48
              +4
              Quote: Good
              And what would you do at the place of Vova ??? Yes, even in 2000. Hind thoughts are all strong.

              But why the pancake exactly sank the Kursk? Have you personally reported to all theorists on the site?
              The argument about the technological hole ala torpedo, for me it is nonsense. Who knows a killer argument in PM.
              1. muhomor
                muhomor 22 January 2014 23: 51
                +1
                Army! "Kursk" was not drowned by any adversaries. It's just that during the exercises it took a "show-off" number - "a whale jump." This is when the submarine jumps out of the water by almost a third to the surface. After the jump, the boat with a strong trim went to a depth, and the depth was shallow (about 100 meters). The crew could not keep the ship at a given depth. The boat's bow touched the ground at high speed and the "wrong" torpedo fired. And then everything is the same as in the State Act. Commissions - the boat was killed in a torpedo explosion. But the cause of the explosion was not indicated; the boat was ruined by the ostentation of the sons and the mistake of the crew.
            2. optimist
              optimist 22 January 2014 20: 12
              +4
              Quote: Good
              And what would you do at the place of Vova ??? Yes, even in 2000. Hind thoughts are all strong.

              Ie, following your logic, in 2000 and with a direct blow you had to "chew snot"? Just in case, I remind you: an attack (destruction) of a ship of a sovereign power is equated with a military attack with all the consequences ... You could have quietly submerged some amerovskoy tub ...
              1. Onyx
                Onyx 22 January 2014 21: 00
                +6
                Quote: optimist
                Just in case, I remind you: an attack (destruction) of a ship of a sovereign power is equivalent to a military attack with all the consequences

                Do you have evidence that the Kursk was sunk and it was the Americans? And you can just say anything, just like that
              2. not good
                not good 22 January 2014 22: 01
                0
                A submarine in a submerged position does not carry a flag (there is no state affiliation) and, accordingly, is not an object of international law, which means that it is theoretically possible to sink it, but they didn’t drown before even in their thermal waters and no one will drown in the future without war, so as not to run into adequate measures. (not only the Americans are crawling here, but we are with them). And they didn’t drown Amer’s pelvis in a quiet place so that they wouldn’t bury them later.
              3. Gost
                Gost 24 January 2014 12: 12
                0
                And to receive in response a volley of ICBMs from minke whales? In this situation, not you, not me, and no one on this planet has ranted about what happened. The planet would most likely have left orbit.
            3. gorez
              gorez 22 January 2014 21: 33
              +2
              And who brought the country to such a foul state, I would like to know?
          4. saber1357
            saber1357 23 January 2014 01: 19
            0
            WELL WHAT ARE YOU "OPTIMIST" ....
        2. sledgehammer102
          sledgehammer102 22 January 2014 17: 28
          +2
          Quote: A.YARY
          Someone actually believes that there are people in our power structure who are able to immediately decide on such a blow ?!
          Maybe someone will provide an example?


          Do you have an example when the application of such actions would be necessary?

          The Kodori Gorge was bombed, the Georgians were pushed aside while there were no direct calls, God willing and there won't be, but as they say, "If you want peace, get ready for war"
          1. Rus2012
            Rus2012 22 January 2014 17: 48
            +19
            Quote: sledgehammer102
            "If you want peace, prepare for war"

            ... well ... the first ones under the distribution are the Saudis.
            It is likely that after the Olympics and begin. Well, if, God forbid, there will be an incident at this time - IMHO the Saudis are unlikely to live quietly until the summer!
            1. Tersky
              Tersky 22 January 2014 18: 00
              +10
              Quote: Rus2012
              .. well ... the first ones under the distribution are the Saudis

              And persistently, for a long time, and clearly ..
          2. S_mirnov
            S_mirnov 22 January 2014 19: 21
            +3
            Quote: sledgehammer102
            Do you have an example when the application of such actions would be necessary?

            "Eat Professor!" And when the artillery institute was destroyed in my city, there was no need to inflict such blows on the internal enemy? Didn't need to react quickly? And mind you, the destruction of a large military educational institution did without the Georgians and some other nationalities - they lost theirs!
            1. sledgehammer102
              sledgehammer102 22 January 2014 22: 22
              +2
              Quote: S_mirnov
              "Eat Professor!" And when the artillery institute was destroyed in my city, there was no need to inflict such blows on the internal enemy?


              And how will the "Russian global strike" help here ??? So what what, but in the army every year there is more order, but still far from ideal.
        3. Botanologist
          Botanologist 22 January 2014 18: 03
          +2
          Quote: A.YARY
          My extreme doubt is the ability to instantly and accurately set the country's priority (


          But what, the situation analysis process is disgusting to you or you do not know about this?
        4. S_mirnov
          S_mirnov 22 January 2014 18: 59
          +3
          Quote: A.YARY
          in fact, he believes that there are people in our power structure who are able to immediately decide on such a blow ?!

          As long as the followers of Yeltsin’s policy (successors) are in power, all the issues discussed in the article are verbiage! You should not even spend time on this.
          Remember how much "snot" chewed in the situation with the defector Snowden! What a .. lightning-fast solutions!
          "Sands: Snowden will not be allowed to harm the United States.

          Former CIA officer Edward Snowden will not be allowed to violate the terms of Russian President Vladimir Putin and harm the United States, said presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov in an interview with Kommersant.

          "Nobody allows him to violate the president's condition not to harm the United States," Peskov said. "But he is on the territory of the Russian Federation, having received temporary asylum by legal means, and therefore is free to meet with anyone - we cannot prevent this."
          "
          http://www.yaplakal.com/forum3/topic676373.html
          funny, is not it?

          If anyone is interested in how it happened at all, I advise you to look:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UyDxPROAWI
        5. JIaIIoTb
          JIaIIoTb 22 January 2014 21: 15
          +7
          Ardent. 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX. There was a man who did everything correctly and on time.
          You can not spit saliva on deficiencies.
          I judge whether the goal is achieved or not.
        6. saber1357
          saber1357 23 January 2014 01: 18
          +2
          Well, you are ardent, ardent. Hold on, maybe? Is it really hard to think and then write, huh? For example, in this direction: if there is the possibility of delivering such a blow, then maybe it will not be necessary to deliver it. And if she is not, then what?
        7. Jurkovs
          Jurkovs 23 January 2014 09: 45
          +1
          Quote: A.YARY
          Someone actually believes that there are people in our power structure who are able to immediately decide on such a blow ?!

          And for what reason the Americans took and turned off the fully deployed strike operation on Syria. Putin just talked with Obama on the phone, and promised that the Syrians would surrender chemical weapons, which they already lacked in control, all at the front.
      2. neri73-r
        neri73-r 22 January 2014 15: 49
        +7
        1500-2000 missiles, how much dough will it take and time to make them? Unrealistic now! Even our probable friends can hardly afford it, although they store racquets at some info!
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 22 January 2014 16: 03
          +3
          Quote: neri73-r
          1500-2000 missiles, how much dough will it take and time to make them? Unrealistic now! Even our probable friends can hardly afford it, although they store racquets at some info!

          Lot. The main thing here is to understand why the Americans made a quick global blow. The answer is to level the enemy’s nuclear potential (combined with missile defense), i.e. - ours, and (in the future) Chinese. The rest is an option. There is no need to rush with banana republics - there is only one outcome.
          So for us the question is whether such a system is needed. The presence of non-nuclear and nuclear KR is necessary, but the scale is a question for specialists and financial realities.
          In addition, a quick global strike included not only the Kyrgyz Republic, but also non-nuclear ICBMs
        2. Rus2012
          Rus2012 22 January 2014 18: 02
          +2
          Quote: neri73-r
          1500-2000 missiles

          500-600 X-55 missiles were received from Ukraine ... quite suitable for modernization and updating.
          The cost of one rocket type Tomahawk Block IV about 936tys.doll.
          Ours should cost about 2 a lot cheaper ... so calculate ...
        3. Army1
          Army1 22 January 2014 19: 53
          +4
          Quote: neri73-r
          1500-2000 missiles, how much dough will it take and time to make them? Unrealistic now! Even our probable friends can hardly afford it, although they store racquets at some info!

          If you take into account: one rocket $ 1 million in serial purchase, we multiply by 2000 we get $ 2 billion plus storage service, roughly 2,5 billion is not so unrealistic.
        4. Vasek
          Vasek 22 January 2014 20: 41
          +4
          Quote: neri73-r
          1500-2000 missiles, how much dough will it take and time to make them? Unrealistic now! Even our probable friends can hardly afford it, although they store racquets at some info!


          A people who do not want to feed their army sooner or later feed someone else's.
    2. Samminosh
      Samminosh 22 January 2014 15: 58
      +6
      But what is there up to 10000 ... Up to a million kilometers, garbage was trifled, otherwise the terrorists will dig in the moon, but there is nothing to drive them away, pichalbida. And for every missile, ten hundred-gigaton warheads.

      Let's not reach absurd requirements and tasks?
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 22 January 2014 20: 09
        +3
        From a low orbit and a CR at 10000 km range to the moon it crashes.
        It’s enough to add gas and appropriate 1kB software to the aerodynamic wheels to understand when and how they need to be driven.
    3. silver_roman
      silver_roman 22 January 2014 16: 10
      +6
      The missile will cover 10 km for a long time, because subsonic speed. if you bring it to 000-2 Mach, then it would be the case.
      as for the carriers: it’s very smart to place the CR on the submarine. they are easier to maintain in constant combat readiness, more difficult to detect and destroy than say the air force. that and also one submarine will be able to carry disproportionately more CR than LA!
    4. v53993
      v53993 22 January 2014 17: 49
      +4
      There is a retaliatory strike system. And given that we still have a generation of Soviet officers, as well as a generation of sons brought up by them, we are invincible.
    5. v53993
      v53993 22 January 2014 17: 55
      +7
      Qatar already peeps so that the system is tested on it. It’s time to satisfy.
      1. Samaritan
        Samaritan 22 January 2014 18: 31
        +6
        AHA AND ... According to international law, Russia has every reason to strike at bases and camps for training militants, centers for controlling terrorist organizations located on the territory of other states, if they do not want or cannot stop their activities on their own territory. This is especially true if countries that host terrorists use them as a military force against Russia or its allies.
        bully
    6. StolzSS
      StolzSS 22 January 2014 19: 32
      +2
      Such a range is too expensive a pleasure. If you carefully look at the map, you will understand that 800 km is an extremely sufficient range to hit any target on the territory of the earth from a submarine from a 20 mile distance from the coast hi
    7. Army1
      Army1 22 January 2014 19: 41
      +2
      I have long been waiting for this article. Indeed, the ability to strike a global blow at our adversary is necessary. I think GPV-2020 modernization + new units, the situation will be corrected.
      Many people think that the United States Navy will immediately shoot a bunch of cr. This is complete nonsense. Firstly, MK 41 is universal, it is also for air defense, which has not yet learned to intercept supersonic PCRs. Secondly, they cannot drag a bunch of destroyers and expose other directions. so set aside the panic. In the end, you can destroy the media themselves. I am glad that the country is on the way to restoring the status of a superpower. Do not forget about our land-based cr, so save up ahead ammunition. I no longer understand the situation with our airborne missile defense systems for a 300-1000km front such as the AGM-158 JASSM tactical in general. Who in the course enlighten, are they? in project?
    8. Interface
      Interface 22 January 2014 20: 03
      0
      To begin with, you need to create an apparatus and bring it to mind. And even the Chinese have already tested a rocket, but our flight lasts "a few seconds." So they said. We need to work harder!
      1. Onyx
        Onyx 22 January 2014 21: 10
        +1
        Quote: Interface
        To begin with, you need to create an apparatus and bring it to mind. And even the Chinese have already tested a rocket, but our flight lasts "a few seconds." So they said. We need to work harder!

        It is not exactly clear what exactly the Chinese experienced, but hypersonic weapons, in the form of warheads for ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear charge, were successfully tested in Russia at the beginning of 2004.
      2. Zveruga
        Zveruga 22 January 2014 21: 41
        +5
        And where did you get about the flight in a few seconds? ;)

        There was one article in the western edition, which says just that. I am extremely doubtful of such a source. Such projects are so classified that in Russia they don’t know how things are, and you decided to trust those who know the least about it. That article was provocative; it was intended to force him to inform him of at least some information about hypersonic research in Russia with his emotional humiliation of his opponent. Therefore, do not succumb to provocations.

        Hypersonic missiles were created during the USSR. The question is the specific speed, because hypersound is a range from 5 to 25 Machs, there is no higher sense, since it is faster than the first cosmic speed. This range is divided into three sections, near, middle and fast hypersound.

        All spacecraft descend to earth at a speed of about 24 M, so creating a hypersonic flying object is actually not that difficult, so put all the followers of the seconds into the farthest corner of consciousness and don’t remember about them. It’s hard to maneuver at that speed.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    9. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 22 January 2014 21: 27
      +2
      To do this, you need to withdraw from the agreement on ballistic missile defense, and to increase the effectiveness of the same calibers, x101 and others, put a tactical bomb on them, then 1 that 160 with 12 missiles will be equal to 100 tamahawks at least and 5-6 such machines in the air can calm any aggressor middle arm.
    10. rolik
      rolik 22 January 2014 23: 22
      0
      Quote: AVV
      So that our strategic missile carriers patrolling at one end of the world could bear a blow anywhere in the world !!!

      Already I can offer one such point. Such a small, stinking, Qatar is called.
    11. asar
      asar 23 January 2014 07: 25
      0
      "It was smooth on paper, but on the way again ravines!" everything is written beautifully, clearly! the actions of the Supreme, and intelligence and military forces are scheduled!
    12. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 23 January 2014 09: 41
      0
      I can’t understand why YOU confuse the global quick strike system and the global strategic strike system. The latter has long been with us and the Americans. Out of confusion in concepts, the whole discussion went in a slightly different direction.
  2. Rink
    Rink 22 January 2014 15: 24
    +31
    The modernization of the army is excellent.
    But the main thing that needs to be done is to solve media issues, to close foreign propaganda on its air. Protecting the information space is now more important than guns. Who does not believe - take a look at what's happening here with us in Kiev.

    And they’re not even afraid of the actions of the militants on Grushevsky, but how many, it turns out, sympathize with them among ordinary Kievans. The brains of the inhabitants are thoroughly washed!

    Always a Russian soldier, his fighting spirit and stubbornness in resisting any invader were the basis for maintaining the country's independence. And if the soldier thinks that it is more correct to surrender to the "Varangians", and the rear will sabotage the needs of the front, who will need even the most ultra-modern weapon ?!

    The main danger is now in the information war!
    1. St Petrov
      St Petrov 22 January 2014 15: 39
      +9
      Traitors have always been, even when the propaganda machine worked for us.

      These are not confused people - they are just traitors. For a cheap passport and a luggage, they are ready to lie under a united Europe. Do not go to the fortuneteller, the state security service will take everyone in pencil.

      Betrayal will be punished, and these snot that they supposedly got confused, fooled - let them leave the prosecutor

      =]
      1. PValery53
        PValery53 22 January 2014 21: 44
        +1
        Quote: s-t Petrov
        Betrayal will be punished, and these snot that they supposedly got confused, fooled - let them leave the prosecutor

        - Such words are useful to leave for epitaph ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Igor80
      Igor80 22 January 2014 23: 38
      0
      Yes, right to the point!
    4. smirnov
      smirnov 22 January 2014 23: 50
      0
      Believe me, I am a Kievite, there are very few local sympathizers, mostly students and workers (Western Ukrainians). Although there are a couple of my friends among the friends involved in the mess ...
      1. Rink
        Rink 23 January 2014 01: 00
        +1
        Quote: smirnov
        Believe me, I am a Kievite, there are very few local sympathizers, mostly students and workers (Western Ukrainians). Although there are a couple of my friends among the friends involved in the mess ...

        I am also from Kiev, and among my acquaintances - it turns out! - there are several people "sympathizing". Moreover, the father-in-law and brother-in-law are in favor of this coup. If bribes are smooth from the father-in-law: an uneducated, pensioner from morning to evening, zombified by the Ukrainian-American TV; then my brother-in-law, a young man with two higher educations (including the Kiev Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs!) surprised me with a lot.
        I expected a much smaller response, and since both I and you found sympathizers among friends, and on the streets I hear conversations and see EU flags and black and red Bandera’s more often than expected (and even on the outskirts of Kiev, far from Maydaunovsky center).
        Therefore, I say that there are many more sympathizers than expected.
        1. egor 1712
          egor 1712 23 January 2014 09: 58
          +1
          Yes, what are you saying. It seems to me that soon the people of Kiev themselves, without the help of Berkut, will clear their city of Bandera militants. To whom to sympathize? Trash who broke and plundered the city. A lot of dollars have gathered from all over the country .... in which, for the joy of robbing and killing, and for that, getting money.
    5. CTEPX
      CTEPX 23 January 2014 06: 50
      0
      Quote: Skating rink
      The main danger is now in the information war!

      The presence of the concept of a global strike and the possibility of its implementation is an excellent argument in the information war)).
  3. AnpeL
    AnpeL 22 January 2014 15: 25
    +12
    According to Senegal, it would probably be possible to work out a fast global
    1. sergey32
      sergey32 22 January 2014 15: 28
      +12
      Better to gasp in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 22 January 2014 15: 51
        +7
        Better yet, in Sinegal and in Qatar and the Saudis! hi
        1. sergey32
          sergey32 22 January 2014 16: 06
          +4
          As I already wrote, we would not be in the way of a base on Socotra Island near Yemen. Given the long-standing good relations with the Yemenis, one could talk about it with them. The pretext is convenient - the fight against pirates, Somalia is nearby completely. And the camels constantly keep the minimum flying time for the eggs.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. St Petrov
            St Petrov 22 January 2014 17: 38
            +4
            You are talking about the investigation.
            The reason is the Anglo-Saxons.

            So you give direct focus on small shaves

            It was they who stood behind the revolution of 17, they bought Gorbach. The Saudis are so. dust underfoot - without coordination mi6
            1. CTEPX
              CTEPX 23 January 2014 06: 55
              +1
              Quote: s-t Petrov
              So you give direct focus on small shaves

              Not. For small - will have a large caliber, in which case)). And we are talking about LAN.
      2. PValery53
        PValery53 22 January 2014 21: 53
        +1
        To these snickering princes, "tossing coal" is a sacred cause.
    2. PValery53
      PValery53 22 January 2014 21: 50
      +1
      According to Senegal: it would be more accurate to harm the French instigators. And the poor blacks are pawns, simple performers, they are for 5-10 days of arrest, and the population of Senegal, I suppose, is already poor ...
  4. Stiletto
    Stiletto 22 January 2014 15: 28
    +12
    In theory, all this sounds beautiful, so who would refuse the tempting opportunity to "kill terrorists in the outhouse" regardless of where the outhouse is? But the experience of even a small Georgian war has shown that so far Russia is not ready to implement such large-scale projects either from the political (otherwise Mishiko would have been hanged, like Saddam by the amers), or from the economic (it is very expensive to shoot sparrows from a cannon), or even from the military (some of the officers' cell phone negotiations during the hostilities!) point of view. So I repeat, as a theory, such a thing as a global blow has a right to exist, but before practice from this theory, like to Paris ... um.
    1. neri73-r
      neri73-r 22 January 2014 15: 52
      +1
      I agree with you completely, but as they say, the goal is small - the result is small! Need to strive!
    2. Tarpon
      Tarpon 22 January 2014 15: 55
      +2
      The very designation of the possibility of a global blow is already a good deterrent (for hotheads).
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Ascetic
      Ascetic 22 January 2014 16: 39
      +6
      Quote: Stiletto
      So I repeat, as a theory such a thing as a global blow has a right to exist, but before the practice of this theory, as before Paris ... um.


      Sivkov lobbying for the interests of the TRV corporation in almost all of the weapons listed in the article is their topic. In principle, there’s nothing to be ashamed of. A man came up with a justification for a large order on the principle of why are we worse than striped ones with their GBU smile
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 22 January 2014 16: 46
        +5
        The long-range WTO program has been approved, allocated to the TRV Corporation for the modernization of 64 billion rubles.

    5. Rus2012
      Rus2012 22 January 2014 18: 05
      +3
      Quote: Stiletto
      So I repeat, as a theory such a thing as a global blow has a right to exist, but before the practice of this theory, as before Paris ... um.

      ... we will survive this summer ... as they say we’ll see.
      This is me about the Saudis and the non-contact and global strikes.
      It’s time to end the sponsors of terrorism and pacify our Caucasus ...
  5. Turik
    Turik 22 January 2014 15: 30
    +3
    The main thing is why such a system of "badass blow" is being created - to cut into the jaw and knock down the enemy faster than he can recover. Moreover, the enemy is stronger than the aggressor or equal to him. You don't need hundreds of tomahawks to kill terrorists.

    The main component is hypersonic missiles that have not yet been created (army blanks, not prototypes). They fly high, fast and quiet; not like a hundred-ton shaitan-rockets like "Satan" or any "trident". Their launch will be immediately detected and before it has flown a quarter of the way, half of the country will be put on ears.

    The logical conclusion: this strategy is nothing more than another attempt by the United States to push parity in the strategic defense of the first echelon countries - Russia, China, Iran. And perhaps a means of future aggression. And unlike lasers and other "wunderwaffe" is quite realizable in the coming years.

    So our undertakings in this area are exclusively forced measures aimed at protecting our citizens from the threat of international terrorism. yes
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 22 January 2014 20: 17
      +1
      In general, hypersonic guided shells for Russia are waste material from the 1950s.
      The only thing that was missing then was good navigation on the digital.
      But the analogue turned out well.
      1. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 23 January 2014 09: 53
        0
        Let me not believe you. If you can give a link. And if you mean ballistic warheads, now we are talking about hypersonic cruise missiles and carriers, and as far as I know, the direct-flow engine has not yet been developed for this, just drooling.
  6. TS3sta3
    TS3sta3 22 January 2014 15: 36
    +3
    a global blow is an extreme. it is much better to help and not interfere with potential opponents to destroy each other at their own expense, with their own hands and on their territory. This is aerobatics.
  7. delfinN
    delfinN 22 January 2014 15: 44
    +12
    Quote: sergey32
    Better to gasp in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    It seems to me that we need to slowly beat both of these and those in order to accustom the world to the fact that crushing a loaf of bread for Russia is more expensive.
    1. Metlik
      Metlik 22 January 2014 16: 24
      +1
      White Eagle - coat of arms of Poland. We have gold or was black before.
      1. CTEPX
        CTEPX 23 January 2014 07: 00
        0
        Quote: Metlik
        White Eagle - coat of arms of Poland.

        This is from us - from us. Let them use it for now)).
      2. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 23 January 2014 09: 55
        0
        And the heads of our eagle are directed in different directions.
  8. URAL72
    URAL72 22 January 2014 15: 48
    +1
    The author suggests hitting nuclear and chemical infrastructure facilities ...
    Let me remind you, according to international standards, a blow to a nuclear power plant (and other active nuclear infrastructure facilities) is equivalent to a gift with nuclear weapons, the same applies to chemical enterprises if their destruction entails chemical contamination. What will turn out for us to strike their allies with WMD?
    1. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 23 January 2014 09: 57
      0
      Please reference these international standards. There are no such norms, you were mistaken.
  9. shitovmg
    shitovmg 22 January 2014 15: 51
    +5
    Wail, sure wah, but not now ...!
  10. demel2
    demel2 22 January 2014 16: 01
    +1
    That would be to adopt such a law, and have so many weapons, then the Saud would then have postponed the larva.
  11. shinobi
    shinobi 22 January 2014 16: 05
    +20
    Such a strike is possible only in countries that do not have their own nuclear weapons. One of the Pentagon generals accused some of his colleagues of completely idiocy of assuming the use of such a strike against Russia. As he openly declared to the press-start of the Russian Federation even one missile would trigger a retaliatory strike by the entire triad of Russian nuclear weapons. By the way, it is legislatively enshrined in the military doctrine of the Russian Federation. The Russian army is able to turn any enemy into a non-nuclear conflict, even NATO. Therefore, the West constantly inspires us with the idea of ​​the weakness of our army. But if this were true, Russia would have been torn to pieces for a long time. I’ve lost wars. Even the information war is slowly being surrendered, although they themselves still don’t realize this.
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 22 January 2014 20: 23
      +3
      "Sauerkraut is good, but there should be cold cuts in the house."
      If, in response to a blow of 96 KR, one may whimper with a kiloton or a hundred, one can run into.
      But if we clean up the territorial waters and territories with the help of non-nuclear CDs, then there is another question - will the exchange of "arguments" continue or someone will very much want to return to Portland.
  12. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 22 January 2014 16: 13
    0
    In addition to weapons and money, we need trained military personnel with high moral and combat qualities.
  13. knn54
    knn54 22 January 2014 16: 21
    +2
    -Russia can create today ...
    So why not create? This “is needed yesterday.” No need for a repetition of the situation of 1914 and 1941.
    Many subsonic CDs are better than a complete absence, but not a solution.
    In the event of a global strike, an information war is waged - the enemy’s computer networks are out of order, interfering with integrated defense systems, in the FIRST TIME, air defense and missile defense. The speed and synchronism of actions of all components of the RSU is the key to success.
    RSU is: secrecy of massive use, significant firing range, large payload mass, short flight time to ANY Goal on the planet, low vulnerability to air defense / missile defense!
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 22 January 2014 20: 30
      +2
      Territories and money allocated for these factories.
      KR on (2-3) M has long been familiar.
      There was not only a sensible and coherent doctrine under them.
      Very early and at the wrong time they appeared in the USSR - there were neither military minds for them, nor technologies.
      Although what was done turned out pretty well.
      Replacing analog calculators with Chinese smartphones will greatly reduce production and add space for fuel or warheads.
      The main thing is to start producing startup kits for children's creativity based on them.
      ABOUT! On Sunday, I’m going to a familiar Chineese to market an idea.
  14. 10kAzAk01
    10kAzAk01 22 January 2014 16: 23
    +3
    5. Modernization of the 941 TRPK SN into carriers of strategic non-nuclear cruise missiles.

    .... I generally believe that this is the MOST priority task for the modernization of the submarine ... much more important than the Mistral .... the modernization of at least two boats of this project at times increased the striking power of the Navy ... and not just one type of missiles, but at least RCC and KR
    1. Onyx
      Onyx 22 January 2014 16: 43
      +2
      Quote: 10kAzAk01
      I generally believe that this is the MOST priority for upgrading the subfloor ... much more important than Mistral


      you still need to calculate how much it will cost and how much time this upgrade will take. At the same time, do not forget that these boats are not 10-15 years old, the newest of them is already 25 years old. It may turn out that it is more expedient to continue building the new generation submarines - the modernized Ash trees (project 885M). Moreover, a large series reduces the cost. As for the Mistral, the Navy, like the Armed Forces as a whole, must be balanced.
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 22 January 2014 20: 34
        0
        Just a task for them.
        Moreover, modernization will affect mainly the mines themselves.
        In addition, such modernization will just extend their shelf life by five to ten years.
        1. Onyx
          Onyx 22 January 2014 21: 15
          0
          Quote: dustycat
          Just a task for them.
          Moreover, modernization will affect mainly the mines themselves.
          In addition, such modernization will just extend their shelf life by five to ten years.

          Well no. Many systems will have to be upgraded, including communications, navigation, weapon control systems, etc. Plus, repairs.
      2. xtur
        xtur 24 January 2014 01: 49
        0
        > we still need to calculate how much it will cost and how long such an upgrade will take.

        when Russia has 100500 different ships, then it’s possible to write off the 941st, and now they must be used.

        mine modernization cannot be difficult and expensive; ship geometry does not change. And the modernization of the rest of the necessary equipment will certainly be cheaper and faster than the construction of a new building + production and installation of the same amount of equipment
  15. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 22 January 2014 16: 25
    +3
    Rocket X-555. Flight range - up to 3000 km. The flight speed is about Mach 0,8. 1 kilometer rocket flies in 4 seconds. And the entire distance in 200 minutes, i.e. in 3 hours 20 minutes. The X-101 missile flies 5000 km at about the same speed. It’s worth considering. If you launch a nuclear missile from America to Russia and / or vice versa, then the warhead will reach the target in 30-45 minutes.
  16. Krokodilych
    Krokodilych 22 January 2014 16: 28
    +4
    Global oad is possible only with hypersonic missiles. If you carefully shake off the dust from the developments of the times of the USSR, then you can do a lot of good things, and quickly and inexpensively (let's not be shy and start to print rockets in 3D with a laser - the Americans have already printed and tested the components of the ROCKET engine - everything works).
    In general, Russia needs to have about 100000 (100 THOUSAND who did not understand) long-range hypersonic missiles in order to tightly discourage NATO from wanting. Less is not to frighten anyone except the Baltic states.
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 22 January 2014 17: 04
      +4
      Quote: Crocodilech
      VohaAhov

      Quote: Crocodilech
      Krokodilych

      as they say on the right path, comrades! Sivkov in the article is somewhat disingenuous why he suggested the above. GBU concept suggests the possibility of striking hypersonic WTO non-nuclear performance on targets anywhere in the world from its territory in an hour. That's when Obnosov will provide us with such a ready-to-use product on which they work together with the NGO Mash and then it will be possible to talk in practice about a quick global strike.
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 22 January 2014 20: 39
        +1
        These hypersounds were given to you ..
        Enough 3M carriers.
        Moreover, their bulk.
        A little only dust from the drawings to shake and update avionics.
    2. Onyx
      Onyx 22 January 2014 17: 07
      +1
      Quote: Crocodilech
      In general, Russia needs to have about 100000 (100 THOUSAND who did not understand) long-range hypersonic missiles

      You are joking? Who needs 100000 missiles? It is not enough. You need a million, and preferably two. It is then that we will repel NATO’s desire.
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 22 January 2014 20: 36
        +5
        Quote: Onyx
        You need a million, and preferably two. It is then that we will repel NATO’s desire.


        Every Russian family has a personal cruise missile!
      2. Krokodilych
        Krokodilych 23 January 2014 09: 46
        0
        Do you know how many missiles deployed at NATO?
        1. Onyx
          Onyx 23 January 2014 11: 44
          0
          Quote: Crocodilech
          Do you know how many missiles deployed at NATO?

          No, but you probably know?
          1. Krokodilych
            Krokodilych 23 January 2014 13: 06
            0
            http://topwar.ru/31118-aktualnaya-tema-krylatye-rakety-i-kak-s-nimi-borotsya.htm
            l
            If you estimate the total volley only the United States - about 5000 pieces. Estimate how much they still have in stock?
            http://www.airwar.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=1384
            In total, the US Air Force plans to get 4900 cruise missiles JASSM and JASSM-ER
            ---
            Well, extrapolate yourself - about 100 thousand come out.
            For parity, it is necessary no less, and if we take into account that the number of NATO military facilities is many times greater than in Russia, then as much as it turns out, the destructive ability is much less, and missile defense must also be discounted.
      3. Krokodilych
        Krokodilych 23 January 2014 09: 46
        0
        Do you know how many missiles deployed at NATO?
    3. Army1
      Army1 22 January 2014 20: 12
      +2
      Quote: Crocodilech
      In general, Russia needs to have about 100000 (100 THOUSAND who did not understand) long-range hypersonic missiles in order to tightly discourage NATO from wanting. Less is not to frighten anyone except the Baltic states.

      You see, let's say we bought 100000 missiles and even hypersonic, which are more expensive. Fine. But there is one thing, we spent a lot of money ooooooooooo much, the missiles will age, well, or stupidly rot. And nobody will apply them. There's no point! And the United States, if necessary, will not blink an eye, as they will use nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons specifically. and where do their show-offs go? BSU against Russia is nonsense, against Iraq is normal. In a local conflict, too, is normal. Yes, and few people know that the main fans of non-nuclear weapons - the United States, almost used it in Korea in the 50s, in Vietnam, and there was an article about mini nuclear weapons in Afghanistan http://www.dal.by/news/79/ 09-04-12-27 /
  17. Leshka
    Leshka 22 January 2014 16: 31
    -2
    it would be nice to destroy a state in a few hours
    1. andrei332809
      andrei332809 22 January 2014 18: 57
      +4
      Quote: Leshka
      it would be nice to destroy a state in a few hours

  18. Gardamir
    Gardamir 22 January 2014 16: 33
    +4
    A global blow, and even with the word Russian, it is certainly interesting. But for some reason it seems to me that the future belongs to units of the type "A" group.
  19. Mercenary
    Mercenary 22 January 2014 16: 33
    -1
    It is high time! True path let's go comrades. And what is our gallant government?
  20. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 22 January 2014 20: 34
        +9
        Quote: Tartary
        ..op with labyrinths ... "


        In practice, this is a change in the terrain in order to mislead the DSMAC Toporov electron-optical correlation subsystem ...
        And then there’s the sixth. Chinese. Manual sunset option .. smile
  21. delfinN
    delfinN 22 January 2014 16: 53
    +3
    "Russian global strike"
    As Gena Janissary from "72m" used to say: A peeling stump on the collar so that the head does not dangle.
  22. Fofan
    Fofan 22 January 2014 16: 57
    +1
    Quote: AVV
    We need a global strategic strike system, it’s only necessary to create the necessary number of carriers for it !!! And where to simply upgrade !!! So that no one leaves the answer and feels safe anywhere !!! But the range of the Kyrgyz Republic needs to be increased from 5000 km to 10000 !!! So that our strategic missile carriers patrolling in one end of the world, could bear a blow to anywhere in the world !!!

    We need a global strategic strike system, we only need money to build it somewhere to find
  23. rus9875
    rus9875 22 January 2014 17: 03
    0
    richer with rumor ...
  24. lexx2038
    lexx2038 22 January 2014 17: 17
    +3
    I have no doubt that more missiles are needed, and all sorts of different ones, but in the context of this article one can feel the call to abandon Ya.O. which is extremely imprudent and dangerous. The campaign of our leaders is forced to such a decision by foreign "experts" - because there our deposits_villa_children_resident permits ... Like Ya.O. right now, not camilfo, here we have flies being shot down with rockets, etc. For me, it's better to have a huge sneaker, so that all the flies at once, and so that they are afraid to go to bed in the evening. And it is necessary to develop, no doubt.
  25. v53993
    v53993 22 January 2014 17: 44
    +1
    There is a system. And given that we have a generation of Soviet officers, as well as a generation of sons brought up by them, we are invincible.
  26. Nitarius
    Nitarius 22 January 2014 18: 00
    0
    MY answer may seem naive probably!
    BUT BUT BUT ... WHY WOULD NOT FIT NON-NUCLEAR MISSILES UAVs underwater am and that they circle the shores of potential "friends and homies" to defend the stronghold of democracy! well, it is possible for THEY to LAY ON THE BOTTOM near THEIR banks! in the right case took off from the bottom of the ocean! ??
    1. Tartary
      Tartary 22 January 2014 20: 03
      +2
      Quote: Nitarius
      Well, it’s possible that THEY LAY ON THE BOTTOM near their shores! in the right case, they took off themselves from the bottom of the ocean! ??


      Damn ... Don’t risk it with ideas, colleague ...)))

      I, too, about three years ago under a different nickname, here on VO "joked" about an underwater aircraft-carrying nuclear cruiser with several take-off decks and missiles on board ...

      The forum users joked appreciated ...

      But recently, one of the bosses of the RF Ministry of Defense spoke out on a similar topic with a serious look, referring to the beginning of some developments ...

      And so, it would be possible to count on royalties ... sad

      Although, for the safety of the homeland - nothing is a pity! soldier
      1. Power
        Power 22 January 2014 22: 36
        +1
        There are many ideas: for example, using underwater currents (such as the Gulf Stream) to arrange nuclear landmines along the coastline, (since Japan is no longer there as an example), the destruction of the ozone layer over their territory, dirty bombs and, in general, many different amenities for sworn friends. It’s not so expensive, but people’s joy.
  27. andrei332809
    andrei332809 22 January 2014 18: 27
    +3
    why do we need again the Yankees pop? it is seen that it is expensive and inefficient. it’s better like the Jews, let the elite’s special elite carve out. tady and crap do bad things
  28. Black
    Black 22 January 2014 18: 28
    -1
    Quote: Leshka
    it would be nice to destroy a state in a few hours

    Quote: Mercenary
    It is high time! True path let's go comrades.


    Not for every urge "GIVE !!!" you need to shout in ecstasy "URYa !!!". Sometimes you need to think about it.
    - how much is it;
    - can we "pull" such expenses;
    - whether such methods will solve, for example, the issue of export of terror from abroad;
    - and then we pulled on "pants" to try on a hat;
    - "International law" already what? - for Russia nothing? We have half the world of allies, satellites, who will cover us with shouts - "Bravo !!!"
    - In the end, we have solved so many domestic political problems that we can move on to solving global problems?
  29. individual
    individual 22 January 2014 18: 43
    +2
    "According to international law, Russia has every reason to strike at bases and training camps for militants, and control centers for terrorist organizations located on the territory of other states, if they do not want or cannot stop their activities on their territory by their own forces."

    This statement should be considered a black mark to the leaders of Riyadh, Doha and Baghdad.
  30. Salamander
    Salamander 22 January 2014 18: 59
    +3
    Article "+", the idea is great, especially about the installation of cruise missiles on the "Akula" (Project 941). You can not send aircraft to restore order, just load the submarine with missiles of all types and send it. There will be a kind of B-52, only sea ...
  31. BOB48
    BOB48 22 January 2014 19: 05
    +1
    ..According to international law, Russia has every reason to strike at bases and camps for training militants, control centers of terrorist organizations located on the territory of other states, if they do not want or cannot stop their activities on their own territory. This is especially true if the countries that host terrorists use them as a military force against Russia or its allies - this should be often reminded of from high stands (maybe someone will figure it out faster) fool !
  32. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 22 January 2014 19: 14
    +1
    Quote: BOB48
    ..According to international law, Russia has every reason to strike at bases and camps for training militants, control centers of terrorist organizations located on the territory of other states, if they do not want or cannot stop their activities on their own territory. This is especially true if the countries that host terrorists use them as a military force against Russia or its allies - this should be often reminded of from high stands (maybe someone will figure it out faster) fool !

    Eh ... to smell! But for now, she’s not active ..
    1. andrei332809
      andrei332809 22 January 2014 19: 17
      +2
      Quote: MIKHAN
      Eh ... to smell!

  33. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 22 January 2014 19: 16
    +2
    <<< An analysis of the minimum required composition of the Russian global strike system shows that its creation is quite feasible in the near future. >>>
    Unfortunately, not in the future, but today there is an international situation that requires Russia to be able to deliver an instant global strike! Know that Russia already owns this today and can apply it, probably the unbridled gangster jihadist scum would not behave so brazenly in the world, trampling international law and all moral standards, as well as ideological and financial sponsors and conductors of jihadists from Arab monarchies so brazenly brazenly , frankly did not demonstrate to the whole world, including Russia, that it was they who direct and direct all this gangster rabble!
  34. Pacifist
    Pacifist 22 January 2014 19: 42
    +2
    5. Modernization of the 941 TRPK SN into carriers of strategic non-nuclear cruise missiles.

    I have spoken on this subject many times. The thing is right. In fact, a platform for covert delivery of the Kyrgyz Republic.
  35. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 22 January 2014 20: 51
    +3
    Quote: Such a very incomplete and relatively inexpensive set of measures will allow Russia to get in the medium term its global strike system

    Wording "global" means the possibility of striking in the vast expanses of the globe, i.e. - everywhere. For example, our domestic navigation satellite system is called GLONASS, which means GLOBAL (that is, covering the entire Earth) NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM. Therefore, setting the task for a global strike system, the destruction of the terrorist camp, is too expensive a pleasure. For this, tactical means will be quite enough. The theory of the global strike by high-precision weapons of destruction developed by the USA is a theory of aggression against countries that are obviously inferior to America militarily.
  36. APASUS
    APASUS 22 January 2014 20: 51
    +5
    It’s necessary to organize another five six major bases around the world, such that the response to any action could arrive in 15 minutes, and then even Senegal can capture our trawler, they’re not afraid at all, during the Soviet era, the Senegal ambassador would bring the trawler to his back to Moscow and set in front of the Mausoleum. wink wink wink
  37. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 22 January 2014 21: 22
    +1
    The article is a fat plus.
    Thoughts are more than correct, although we harness a little for a long time. Yes, it will cost money, but that is money. They will simply give less to all Chubais and Obramovichs, to the Kremlin "hostel", and more to guard the "hostel" that already exists.

    ...
    Now it is clear. what is Shoigu building on the territory of the General Staff. Naturally, the General Staff, in its classic form, will never be able to digest such flows of information, for such a short time.
  38. mad
    mad 22 January 2014 22: 50
    0
    And Dudaev didn’t fill up with such a missile by the way? So the prototypes have long been.
  39. DPN
    DPN 22 January 2014 22: 55
    +1
    One must still be able to take advantage of such a blow, for example, the USSR failed to threaten the Saudis, the result is no country.
    We are not the States, we are afraid.
  40. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 22 January 2014 22: 56
    0
    There is little point in creating such a system against America and its allies if there are no plans to strike first. To defend against them, a system of strategic nuclear weapons has already been created. Application against any country other than "rogue states" will automatically provoke one or another response from NATO, America or their allies. Or you will have to negotiate with everyone in advance. And what they ask in return is not difficult to guess, they ask them not to interfere in the Security Council doing the next "revolution", or the right to strike a similar blow to a country where Russia has influence and interests, or something else. Therefore, the purpose of creating such a very expensive system is not very clear. Politically not justified. In addition, the entry into a non-nuclear war of a nuclear state, in the event of an escalation, will very simply lead to the transformation of the war into a nuclear one. Therefore, reducing the threshold for entering a war is not very good for a nuclear state. But from a military point of view, non-nuclear forces of course need to be developed, and quantitatively, including, maybe just not to that extent.
  41. PValery53
    PValery53 22 January 2014 22: 56
    0
    To have the opportunity and apply a global strike if necessary is an indispensable attribute (tool) of our world power. Let our enemies and enemies be afraid to offend us and neglect us ... And for terrorism against Russia they will receive the full program, s ... ki!
  42. avg
    avg 22 January 2014 23: 11
    0
    The article and especially the comments (with the exception of those with humor) are certainly a masterpiece of military thought, a fountain of strategic ideas. Tomorrow, the NSA will report to Obama and all of NATO will not sleep for a year, will start to tricks, invent all sorts of countermeasures, and then get tired, cry and realize that it is better for them to simply give up. crying
  43. Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 22 January 2014 23: 25
    +3
    Wow! What a bright future! The missiles have not yet been stamped, and the tanks are already remelting. Only 2200 pieces will remain by 2020. But 1600 of them are new, Armata. And 17 million Kalash for disposal. Someone from Putin’s team decided that they were up-to-date. Something they lack, either glamor or vintage. That's how our brother is fooled. Under the tales of the future superweapon, real weapons are destroyed. Putin’s gang continues the work of Hunchback.
  44. The comment was deleted.
  45. VadimSt
    VadimSt 23 January 2014 00: 46
    +1
    To me personally, to one place, in which form there will be a retaliatory or preventive strike, the main thing is that both our friends and others should be sure that it is real and inevitable! Stop looking at the recent past and silently demolish everything and everyone!
  46. Betahon
    Betahon 23 January 2014 00: 47
    +1
    I would also add the inclusion of a full arsenal of GRU capabilities, including active in-depth sabotage and reconnaissance work in the territory of a potential enemy.
  47. Arh
    Arh 23 January 2014 01: 00
    +1
    Full protection of Yarsa, Poplar, Submarines, Missile trains, Aviation, so that there are more missiles than NATO and China several times and of course the development of technologies that cannot be sold, our missiles, planes, helicopters, submarines are the best in the world, of course 4, tanks, armored personnel carrier sprout, Kalash, swifts, t 5000, armored vehicles of the typhoon family! The development of drones, ships, laser weapons, railguns, and of course everything you need! ! !
  48. both s69
    both s69 23 January 2014 03: 05
    +3
    Quote: APASUS
    during Soviet times, the ambassador of Senegal would bring a trawler on his back to Moscow and put it in front of the Mausoleum

    Beautifully said, poetically; good I would like to look at this action even out of the corner of my eye, but alas ...
  49. tomev
    tomev 23 January 2014 04: 47
    -1
    Or maybe build an underwater BDK? 100 landing ships at any moment appearing on the coast of the country of a terrorist will be worse than 100t. cruise missiles. laughing laughing
  50. KOH
    KOH 23 January 2014 05: 57
    +1
    Quote: shinobi
    Such a strike is possible only in countries that do not have their own nuclear weapons. One of the Pentagon generals accused some of his colleagues of completely idiocy of assuming the use of such a strike against Russia. As he openly declared to the press-start of the Russian Federation even one missile would trigger a retaliatory strike by the entire triad of Russian nuclear weapons. By the way, it is legislatively enshrined in the military doctrine of the Russian Federation. The Russian army is able to turn any enemy into a non-nuclear conflict, even NATO. Therefore, the West constantly inspires us with the idea of ​​the weakness of our army. But if this were true, Russia would have been torn to pieces for a long time. I’ve lost wars. Even the information war is slowly being surrendered, although they themselves still don’t realize this.


    I fully support this statement ... It seems to me that Putin was checked for lice in August 2008, and after being checked for yelling about "excessive coercion to peace" :))))), to which he replied, "We should have fired from slingshots?" The screaming ones tried on a Georgian frock coat for themselves, and it turned out to be very scary ... and now they understand that at the right moment, Putin has the spirit to press a button ...