Rocket on wheels

61


Russian Topol mobile missile systems (“Serp” according to NATO classification) still do not allow American “hawks” to sleep peacefully. No one but Russians could attach wheels to an intercontinental ballistic missile.

In early March, the Strategic Missile Forces (Strategic Missile Forces) reported on another successful launch from the state central interspecific Kapustin Yar testing ground in the Astrakhan Region intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) RS-12М Topol. As expected, the training unit of this missile struck a conventional target at a given accuracy at the Sary-Shagan test site (Republic of Kazakhstan).

It would seem nothing special. Well, bummed and bummed ... But the current launch of "Topol" is interesting in at least two circumstances. The first is that since the beginning of the development of this complex, 40 years have passed, but no country in the world, except Russia, has ever been able to create a “rocket on wheels” of this magnitude. The second - the purpose of the current launch, as the military put it, was to "test the prospective combat equipment of intercontinental ballistic missiles." Translated into civilian language, this may mean that after these tests Topol, and after them Yarsy, Milestones, and other Russian ICBMs can be equipped with new specialized anti-missile defense systems (ABM), which will reduce to "No" many US efforts to create a missile defense system.

And why not?

The development of strategic missile systems, which would be located on the basis of a wheeled chassis, began in the Soviet Union in the middle of the 60-s of the last century. By that time, Soviet designers and military leaders apparently had already begun to assume that the exploration of near-Earth space would cause the rapid development of space reconnaissance. And after some time, potential adversaries with an accuracy of up to a meter will know the location of each other’s mines, in which intercontinental ballistic missiles are on alert.


Therefore, at the end of the 60 of the last century, the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering (MIT) and TsKB “Titan” began the development of two mobile soil rocket complexes (PGRK), one of which was intended to launch ICBMs and the second to launch medium-range ballistic missiles . Both complexes were put into service practically at the same time - at the turn of 1975 \ 1976. The most famous of them received the Pioneer PGRK (SS-20 according to NATO classification) with a two-stage medium-range ballistic missile 15Ж45. “Pioneers” with a range of shooting up to 5 thousand km and a weight of more than 1,5 tons dropped became one of the most significant factors of world politics in the 70-80 of the last century. By the 1986 year, according to American intelligence, the USSR deployed such a complex on 441 duty, which, of course, terrified impressionable Europeans. About PGRK “Temp-2С” with ICBM 15Ж42 (SS-16 Sinner according to NATO classification), much less is known.

According to, again, the foreign press, from 1976 to 1985 in the USSR, it was deployed from 50 to 100 of similar complexes, each of which could throw a single nuclear warhead over a distance of 10 thousand km. In general, the idea of ​​“rockets on wheels” for Soviet military engineers 30-40 turned out to be very productive years ago. The Yuzhnoye Design Bureau (Ukraine), for example, in conjunction with the Special Mechanical Engineering Design Bureau (St. Petersburg) in the 80 of the last century created the 15P961 combat railway missile complex, which was able to carry three intercontinental ballistic missiles RT-23 UTTH, each of which threw into the territory of a probable enemy 10 warheads with a capacity of 0,43 MT for a distance of more than 10 thousand km. A "MIT", continuing the theme of a medium-range ballistic missile, based on the second and third stages of the RS-12M rocket and the head section with three warheads from 15Ж45 developed a new rocket "Speed", which further enhanced the combat capabilities of Soviet medium-range missiles at the European theater of possible hostilities.

However, soon there was no trace of this variety. According to the Soviet-American agreements, in 1986, the PGRK Temp-2С was removed from combat duty and destroyed. A year later, MIT was ordered to stop all work on the new medium-range ballistic missile and its corresponding mobile carrier. Following this, in a hurry, literally in 4 of the year, all the existing Pioneer PGRs were destroyed. Last of all, as early as in 2003-2005, the combat railway missile systems were removed from combat duty and destroyed (although at the insistence of the UK they were put to death in the 1992 year).

At the same time, which is especially interesting, not a single foreign country managed to create something like a combat railway missile system and mobile ground-based missile systems, which were mass-produced in the USSR in the 80s. For Americans, for example, the only known development is the PGRK with a light (starting mass of 13,6 tons) MBR MGM-134 Midgetman. But they only started work on its creation in 1983-1985. And in 1991, this program was successfully closed, due to the obvious success of US diplomats in disarmament of the Soviet Union.

Surviving sprout

The only one who survived after the defeat of the Soviet mobile missile systems was the PGRK RS-12M Topol (SS-25 "Sickle" according to NATO classification), which was developed by MIT in the early 80s of the last century using Tempo-2C and Pioneer (the latest version of the Pioneer launcher, the Pioneer 3, was largely unified with Topol). According to the generally accepted version, the first regiment staffed by the Topol, took up combat duty in July 1985 in the Yoshkar-Ola region, although the complex itself was officially adopted only in 1988 year.

Rocket 15Ж58 - solid, made according to the scheme with three marching steps. The total mass of the rocket is 45 tons. It is located in a sealed transport and launch container with a length of 22,3 m and a diameter of 2 m, in which a constant temperature and humidity is maintained. Warhead - monoblock. Drop weight - 1 ton. Charging power - 0,55 mt. The maximum firing range - 10 thousand km. The warranty period of the rocket (the time during which the rocket is able to perform its tasks) was initially set to 10 years. However, in November 2005 of the year from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in the direction of the Kura test site in Kamchatka, a rocket was launched, which by that time had been on combat duty for 20 years. The rocket worked properly. In September 2011, the military launched Topol, released in 1988. This launch was also successful.

The semi-axial MAZ-7912 was originally used as the chassis of the mobile complex launcher. Later, MAZ-7917 wheel formula 14х12 was used. Power of the diesel engine of the 710 hp machine. The mass of the launcher with a rocket is about 100 tons. Despite this, the complex "Topol" has good mobility and maneuverability. In addition to the mobile launcher, the complex includes a command post and other auxiliary units located on all-terrain 4-axle wheeled chassis (MAZ-543А, MAZ-543М).

The readiness (preparation time for the launch) from the moment the order is received until the launch of the rocket is 2 minutes At the same time, unlike, for example, from the “Pioneers”, the launch can be carried out both from the patrol route of the complex and from the stationary duty stations (for this, the roofs of the hangars, where the Topol are standing, are made sliding). For launching "from the march" the launcher stops at the most suitable place for this, powerful jacks fix it horizontally, the container with the rocket rises in the vertical position, the powder pressure accumulator placed in the container throws the rocket up several meters, the first stage engine turns on and .... greetings to the one who attacked us. In addition to the increased survivability of the Topol, which is directly related to their mobility, their missiles have the ability to actively overcome the enemy's missile defense system. Unlike conventional ballistic missiles, for example, they can dramatically change the trajectory of the flight, minimizing the possibility of interception.

According to data from open sources, the maximum number of Topolovs that were in service with the Soviet / Russian Strategic Missile Forces was 369 units. Naturally, there are fewer of them now, because as early as the beginning of the 90s of the last century, the Russian leadership decided to upgrade this missile system, and in April 2000ЖXX15 (65Х15 in the PGRK version) was adopted by the Strategic Missile Forces, and the complex itself It became known as PC-55М12 "Topol-M". Unlike the “old” rocket, the new “Topol” is made in two versions - mine and mobile-based (hence the different missile indices). He, according to data from open sources, increased the flight range to 2 thousand km. Judging by some of the available information, the rocket began to rise faster at the initial stage of the trajectory, dodge the enemy’s antimissile system and got more opportunities to deceive the missile defense system. She, for example, can release at the final stage of the trajectory to 11 false targets. But the power of the warhead warhead while it remained the same, as well as the number of warheads - one. As a launcher chassis, it was decided to use the eight-axis design of the Minsk Plant MZKT-20. He has increased engine power to 79221 HP. and the power reserve at one fuel station has grown to 800 km. In addition, last year it became known that the Topol-M PGRK began to receive new engineering and camouflage vehicles, the purpose of which was to disguise the traces of combat mobile missile systems that had come on duty, and to create well-visible enemy satellites that lead to false combat positions PGRK.

However, apparently, Topol-M will soon soon begin to leave the stage, giving way to the newer Yars (PC-24), which developed MIT. The military argue that Yars, in the first place, should replace the mine-based missiles RS-18, which have been in service since the 1975 year (these 105-tonne machines throw 10 6 warheads each with 550 tons). And such a replacement is already underway in the last few years. However, back in 2009, the command of the Strategic Missile Forces stated that the Topol-M was, of course, a good machine, but one warhead was still not very good.

And “Yars”, which, in fact, is a continuation of the “Topol” family, has at least four such warheads (American journalists call the number 10, but this is probably due to emotions). At the same time, it is obvious that he has similar data with Topol in mass and size, therefore the Yars is already entering the Strategic Missile Forces not only in the mine, but also in the mobile ground version. This year, for example, more than two dozen mobile ground-based missile systems armed with Yars must come to the Russian armed forces.
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    19 March 2014 07: 59
    Do you say sanctions? OK
    1. +3
      19 March 2014 13: 57
      Quote: Buskanov
      Do you say sanctions? OK

      A good article, however, a lot of inaccuracies -
      At the same time, unlike, for example, the “Pioneers”, the launch can be carried out both from the patrol route of the complex and from stationary duty stations (for this, the roofs of the hangars where the “Poplars” are placed are made sliding).

      All PIONEERS (1,2, 3) were already in the Crones with sliding roofs ready for launch. Another thing is that when moving on a patrol route - upon receipt of the Order - they had to take the nearest field combat starting position (BSP). What is not necessary for Pioneer-XNUMX and Topol (except for Poplar with a "point"), they can "shoot" from any point on the route, suitable for "leveling" the PGRK
      1. +3
        19 March 2014 17: 39
        Quote: Rus2012
        A good article, however, a lot of inaccuracies -


        Warhead - Monoblock


        There was a technical possibility of docking a platform with three BBs to the combat stage, but since it was forbidden by agreement with the Americans. They were on duty with a monoblock.

        (ICBM) 15ZH58



        Battle stage rocket 15ZH58



        Angle of the rocket 15ZH58 (AO from the undocked GPO, engines that perform the orientation function are visible):



        Readiness (preparation time for launch) from the moment of receipt of the order to the launch of the rocket is 2 minutes.


        This is the operating time of the APP code, the corresponding set is introduced into the computer. Readiness is calculated from the moment of receipt of the order of the PDU. Here the time is different but does not exceed a total of 5 minutes.
        1. +3
          19 March 2014 18: 13
          The first regiment, equipped with "Topol", according to the generally accepted version, took up combat duty in July 1985 in the Yoshkar-Ola region, although The complex itself was officially adopted only in 1988.


          With the Topol missile system, the first to enter the DB on July 23.07.1985, XNUMX was a missile regiment under the command of Lieutenant Colonel VV Dremov. (Yoshkar-Ola).
          With the Topol missile system with mobile control panel the first to intervene on the DB 28.04.1987/XNUMX/XNUMX, the missile regiment under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Terekhov V.V. (Nizhny Tagil).
          With the Topol missile system and advanced mobile control panel the first to enter the database on 27.05.1988/XNUMX/XNUMX was a missile regiment under the command of Lieutenant Colonel G. Semenov (Irkutsk).
          With the Topol missile system and New generation ASBU the first to enter the database on 30.12.1988/XNUMX/XNUMX was a missile regiment under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Knyazev V.I. (Teykovo).
          08.02.1983/12/23.12.1987 The beginning of flight tests at the Plesetsk training ground of the MKR mobile missile system with the RS-XNUMXM solid-fuel rocket. LCI completed December XNUMX, XNUMX. Chairman of the State Commission, Lieutenant General A. Funtikov. General Designers Nadiradze A.D., Lagutin B.N.
          01.12.1988/12/XNUMX adopted a mobile missile system RS-XNUMXM.

          Poplar with a dot and without a dot are complexes very different in possibilities. For some reason, the authors do not make a difference between them.
          PGRK 15P158.1 "Poplar" - SS-25 SICKLE - SPU 15U128.1 on the MAZ-7912 chassis, the RT-2PM / 15Zh58 rocket - in this configuration, the Topol complex was deployed as part of the Strategic Missile Forces at the initial stage.

          - PGRK 15P158 "Poplar" - SS-25 SICKLE - SPU 15U168 on the MAZ-7917 chassis, the RT-2PM / 15Zh58 rocket - the standard configuration of the Topol complex.
  2. +16
    19 March 2014 08: 26
    It would be necessary to return to the railway complexes.
    1. +6
      19 March 2014 10: 21
      According to rumors, they are already returning, only at a new level.
  3. dmitrij.blyuz
    +2
    19 March 2014 08: 49
    It seems that technical solutions for BRZHK are cooking up slowly!
    1. 0
      5 May 2014 21: 28
      By 2020, they will only be ready. Humpbacked su .. for the sake of the Americans drank BZHRK.
  4. +14
    19 March 2014 09: 02
    The text contains the phrase: "Unlike conventional ballistic missiles, they, for example, can dramatically change their flight path,"
    Then the author clearly got excited. 15zh58 can maneuver no more vigorously than other ballistic missiles. Even less, since its controls on the engines of all three stages can create only limited control efforts. Smaller than, for example, rotary nozzles.
    In addition, the word "harsh" generally does not apply to ballistic missiles. It is not an aircraft air-to-air missile that wags in flight.
    And in general, after the end of the active section of the trajectory — about 4 minutes together with the combat stage of the 30 minute flight time — the combat unit cannot maneuver at all. And new maneuvering warheads are only being developed. And it’s definitely not worth it at 15zh58.
    Well, otherwise the author quite adequately reflected the state of the issue.
    The problem of the expediency of this type of basing strategic missiles is still debatable. It is worth considering why the likely friends abandoned them, although studies were carried out. The thesis "could not" should be excluded due to frivolity.
    1. Associate Professor
      +1
      19 March 2014 10: 37
      Quote: AlexA
      The problem of the expediency of this type of basing strategic missiles is still debatable. It is worth considering why the likely friends abandoned them, although studies were carried out. The thesis "could not" should be excluded due to frivolity.

      Perhaps they refused PGRK due to the fact that for the United States, which do not have such evergreen wooded areas as Russia has, such complexes are not relevant: masking will be difficult. They have the main emphasis on SSBNs because it allows them that on both sides they have oceans, access to which is not difficult
  5. +4
    19 March 2014 09: 27
    We must already rivet and medium-range missiles and get out of this stupid treaty.
  6. -15
    19 March 2014 09: 32
    but no country in the world, except Russia, was able to create a "rocket on wheels" of this magnitude

    1. Not only in Russia, but in the USSR.
    2. And who besides China generally tried to create such a rocket on wheels and why is it even needed?

    which will nullify many US efforts to create a missile defense system

    Easy on paper, but ravines prevented. Why then is the Russian leadership so tense about the deployment of an American missile defense? wink

    And after a while, potential opponents will know up to a meter the location of each other's mines, in which intercontinental ballistic missiles are on alert.

    The author, as it were, forgot the nuclear submarine, the main striking force of nuclear forces.

    At the same time, which is especially interesting, not a single foreign country has succeeded in creating anything similar to a military railway missile system and mobile ground missile systems, which were mass-produced in the USSR in the 80s.

    Again 25. And who ever tried to develop this? America launched the duck, the USSR picked it up and spent billions on the railway complex. The Americans invested in the headache of the Premier League partners.

    Unlike conventional ballistic missiles, they, for example, can dramatically change the flight path, minimizing the possibility of interception.

    It's not science fiction.
    1. Associate Professor
      +5
      19 March 2014 10: 43
      Quote: professor
      2. And who besides China generally tried to create such a rocket on wheels and why is it even needed?

      Why do you need it ?? Don't you understand the advantage of weapon mobility?
      Quote: professor
      The author, as it were, forgot the nuclear submarine, the main striking force of nuclear forces.

      Whose exactly? If American, then yes, but not Russian.
      Quote: professor
      And who ever tried to develop this? America launched the duck, the USSR picked it up and spent billions on the railway complex. The Americans invested in the headache of the Premier League partners.

      Maybe so. But now we have the opportunity to recreate such complexes in the event of further development of the US missile defense, deployment of weapons in space, etc.
      1. -7
        19 March 2014 10: 58
        Quote: Docent
        Why do you need it ?? Don't you understand the advantage of weapon mobility?

        Mobility without stealth and security costs nothing. One submarine will redraw all existing mobile systems combined.

        Quote: Docent
        Whose exactly? If American, then yes, but not Russian.

        There they talked about each other.

        Quote: Docent
        But now we have the opportunity to recreate such complexes in the event of further development of the US missile defense, deployment of weapons in space, etc.

        The effectiveness of the railway carriers is doubtful. Cosmos is generally ridiculously forbidden.
        1. +10
          19 March 2014 11: 15
          Mobility without stealth and security costs nothing. One submarine will redraw all existing mobile systems combined.

          On this proposal, the discussion could be ended, especially if the opponent does not have knowledge of the concepts of "security", "secrecy", "uncertainty of position", "combat stability" and the relationships between them.
          It would be worth studying the subject:
          1. For example, the ratio of the number of nuclear submarines carrying the database at the same time and the regiments of the GPRK doing the same.
          2. Opportunities to defeat the planned goals and time to complete the task.
          3. The charge of a nuclear submarine warhead to defeat an infantry division of the division armed with the GPRK.
          4. The cost of manufacturing one regimental set of GPRK and its further operation in comparison with the same criteria for nuclear submarines
          1. -8
            19 March 2014 11: 45
            Well, enlighten the layman about the places of patrolling the nuclear submarines and PGRK, secrecy, survival, combat potential, cast weight and other subtleties.
            I’m hinting that one American Ohio-class submarine carries up to 24 ICBMs. Twenty four!!! Almost 3 regiments of PGRK.

            PS
            Do you want to show me where all the Yars mobile ground-based missile systems with RS-24 plus or minus 50 km are located, and you show me the location of the Ohio-class nuclear submarine at least with an accuracy of 1000 km?
            1. +12
              19 March 2014 13: 49
              I do not have an educational function on this forum. It is assumed that people trained in topics that they are trying to discuss come here already.
              This is the first thing. Now arithmetic is second. With the destruction of 1 APU, one missile is lost. With the destruction of one "Ohio" you have taken as an example, 24 missiles are lost (how many missiles were not delivered to the targets?). How this is done in practice - it is better to ask the divers.
              Third. The haystack is also quite material and finite - like the area around the base of the GPRK. The search for a needle in it is about the same exciting activity as the search for field positions by the sabotage and reconnaissance group of the alleged "partner". You expectedly kept silent about the BB outfit for guaranteed neutralization of the RBP rd, as well as about the cost of the issue.
              1. -8
                19 March 2014 15: 53
                Quote: Moore
                With the destruction of 1 APU, one missile is lost.

                I don’t know about you, but I had the opportunity to serve in the Navy and since then I have been smiling at statements about how easily the bourgeois nuclear submarines will be destroyed. You find them first.

                Quote: Moore
                The haystack is also quite material and finite - like the terrain around the base of the State Dispatch Complex.

                The number of bourgeois reconnaissance satellites and their technical characteristics leave the SREK little chance of survival. You can’t hide them in a haystack and they can’t do it either. The same silos are much more effective.

                Quote: Moore
                About the BB outfit for guaranteed neutralization of the RBP RD you were expected to remain silent, as well as about the cost of the issue.

                I do not have data
                1. +12
                  19 March 2014 19: 11
                  Quote: professor
                  The number of bourgeois reconnaissance satellites and their technical characteristics leave the SREK little chance of survival.


                  Ltd-! What ignorance. And still a professor. 4 Quihouls (2 of which are workers) and 3 Lacrosa ... That's all. No longer in sight, but there is no money ... laughing
                  And it is not foreseen because it is still useless ...

                  even taking into account the multispectral reconnaissance satellites RTR satellites with side-looking radar (SAR), which forest / camouflage networks, etc. do not represent any interference and dual-purpose satellites - WorldView-1, QuickBird, GeoEye-1 and IKONOS still this will not solve the problem of guaranteed monitoring and identification of APUs in 24 mode. firstly, they simply do not have so many satellites. secondly, secondly. second, for each satellite the type of orbit, the orbital period are known, and the "windows" are known when satellite reconnaissance is not conducted in a given area.
                  States no matter how hard they were, they could not detect and destroy a single Scud launcher in Iraq. Wonderful companions did not help them even in those super-warm conditions. In Yugoslavia, too, spy satellites did not give them anything.
                  And in the world of professors, the United States holds hundreds of magic satellites over Russia that hang like balloons over the right areas and see everything.
                  1. +7
                    19 March 2014 19: 11
                    Ensuring the deployment of PGRC is carried out with a range of activities and a number of funds.
                    To prepare for deployment, constantly updated intelligence is used from space monitoring systems, as well as meteorological spacecraft data, to ensure the extension of complexes, usually at night / with continuous cloud cover, in hour "windows" when radar and optical reconnaissance spacecraft are absent over the territory / or cannot survey the terrain, given the possibility of their quantitative build-up in conditions of aggravation of the military-political situation. With the subsequent implementation of position changes in the database process, their disguise and imitation, taking into account the data of these intelligence services.
                    The deployment of PGRK is preceded by engineering reconnaissance and training carried out by the regiment's engineering support services using their own means and using data multispectral satellite imagery. Deployment routes and field positions are usually located in forested areas. High tree crowns significantly limit viewing angles to space reconnaissance equipment, which significantly reduces the frequency of shooting a given area for each spacecraft, and create very large closing angles for long-range aerial reconnaissance.
                    For camouflage from optical and radar reconnaissance vehicles of SPU and support vehicles at field positions, camouflage kits of the MKT-2L, MKT-3L, MKT-2P, MKT-2S, MKT-4L, MKT-4P, MKT-5L types are used. Camouflage coating MKT-4L, MKT-4P, MKT-5L is a network base with woven garlands of cut and twisted color strips of a three-layer electrically conductive material. Not transparent for optical and radar technical intelligence camouflage kits are also used to simulate field positions.
                    Conducting camouflage, imitation and timely change of positions after the passage of the surveillance spacecraft makes the battalion's location unknown for the enemy - whether the PGRK is under the Krona in permanent deployment areas, or in field positions on a territory of thousands of square kilometers, a timely change of positions leads to rapid obsolescence data, high-quality operational masking and imitation makes it impossible to distinguish between false and real power supplies.
                    link
                    There are a number of organizational and technical measures to counteract the enemy’s TCP and KR that are not publicly reported and are used only in the THREATED PERIOD (in peacetime, they are not used on the BP and PP routes)
                    1. +10
                      19 March 2014 19: 23
                      American experts argue that a disarming strike against Russia by means of a non-nuclear global strike is impossible. The main problem is the timely detection of patrolling mobile ground-based missile systems deployed deep in our country. They need to be tracked in real time, and beat as accurately as possible. Such accuracy can only be provided by satellite or aviation radar reconnaissance systems, such as Lacros satellites, U-2R, E-8 Joint Star reconnaissance aircraft, and RQ-4 Global Haw drones. But the Lakrosov’s flight time over Russian territory is limited, and the number of satellites does not allow for continuous monitoring, since The US Senate and Congress recently refused to finance the launch of new ones. During the passage of the PGRK satellites, it is possible to cover with powerful radioelectronic interference. The U-2R, RQ-4 and E-8 airborne radars have high performance, but scouts will still have to invade several thousand kilometers into the airspace of Russia, which is unrealistic. Moreover, the Strategic Missile Forces are now equipped with the most advanced mobile electronic warfare systems (approx. Krasukha-4 has already entered service).
                      Rocket blitz until delayed
                      1. +8
                        19 March 2014 19: 54
                        Quote: Ascetic
                        . The main problem is the timely detection of patrolling mobile ground-based missile systems deployed deep in our country.


                        This is subject to the fact that PUBSP adversaries should practically be known as well as knim routes, at least some for sure. Including for viewing by satellite intelligence. These positions and routes to them, even training ones, but with a good camouflage capacity, do not need them to shine. For now ...
                        for each rdn there are 3-4 training compacts, plus for each APU there are approximately the same number of single individuals total 12. On a regiment without PKP, 12 compacts and 36 single are only training. The same amount of combat is obtained in the sum of 24 and 72. Accordingly PR divisions excluding regimental and divisional command and control positions. 96 compacts and 288 singles. Let them look for a needle in a haystack.
                2. 0
                  April 26 2014 14: 55
                  About TTX and satellite intelligence capabilities of a potential adversary (just a statement not for the discus):

                  The preparation time for the launch of the "SCAD" rocket is 1 hour and 45 minutes if the calculation works smoothly and accurately, at this time the complex is open with all unmasking signs, nevertheless not a single SCUD was destroyed at the starting position.
                  Satellite reconnaissance is a separate topic for specialists, no need to talk about it while walking. The Americans were not able to create a sufficient density of information field over the areas of the main military operations in a small territory of Iraq; the number of reconnaissance satellites (of various types ... optical, electronic and postal reconnaissance) was simply not enough.
                  The territory of Russia is much larger; the solvable tasks of detecting moving targets are unsolvable at this level of technological development.

                  Just a remark:
                  the satellite does not see everything at once with good quality, it sequentially scans the areas, then there is a process of transmitting information to data decoding centers, then there is an analysis of the information received, and only then (if anything is found) is information transmitted to hit the target, and there’s cycle - preparation of a flight mission, etc. etc.
            2. +6
              19 March 2014 14: 17
              Quote: professor
              where all the Yars mobile ground missile systems with RS-24 are located plus minus 50 km

              laughing wassat
              at what point will you show, let me know?

              If on "yesterday", when 70% of the PGRK were in the PPD (points of permanent deployment), today the picture is completely different - 50% dispersed along the PBSP ... Moreover, those that remained at the PPD stand in the same 2-minute readiness for launch.
              And in an hour - 30% and there will not be any ... what will you catch?
              Try to "call" your submarines within the next few hours ...
              1. +4
                20 March 2014 00: 42
                Quote: Rus2012
                Try to "call" your submarines within the next few hours ...

                Upon entering the autonomous system, all the units receive a combat order, of which a communication program is an integral part. With the complication of the situation, the boats are transferred to a more intensive program, up to a continuous one. In this case, the reception is in the underwater position, to a depth of 60m, the communication is one-way, quittless, multi-channel with dubbing by means of SBU transmission.
                The issues of bringing the SBU to the attention of the Navy have been betrayed and are being betrayed of exceptional importance. Now a new system of centralized control of NSNF from the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces is being tested. So "dial up" will sooner have to before the other forces of the triad.
                1. +1
                  20 March 2014 11: 04
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  So "dial up" will sooner have to before the other forces of the triad.

                  In the Strategic Missile Forces connection, a continuous constant multi-channel ...
          2. +3
            19 March 2014 14: 11
            Quote: Moore
            the opponent lacks knowledge of the concepts of "security", "secrecy", "uncertainty of position", "combat stability" and the relationships between them.

            I will add - the oppa lacks the concepts of "flexibility" and "reaction time"
        2. +5
          19 March 2014 14: 08
          Quote: professor
          Mobility without stealth and security costs nothing. One submarine will redraw all existing mobile systems combined.

          ... tell bedtime stories to your grandchildren in that spirit, OK?
          laughing
      2. Russkiy53
        0
        23 March 2014 00: 34
        "Buran" is a typical missile carrier :))) ...
    2. +1
      19 March 2014 14: 05
      Quote: professor
      The author, as it were, forgot the nuclear submarine, the main striking force of nuclear forces.

      Submarine SN - good, no words. Besides the "thin thread" ...
      laughing
    3. +5
      19 March 2014 14: 17
      The author, as it were, forgot the nuclear submarine, the main striking force of nuclear forces.
      Nuclear submarines have never been the main strike force of strategic nuclear forces, they are the second wave of a nuclear missile strike, the third strategic aviation, and the first respectively ICBM. Because The nuclear submarines are allowed to launch for 2 hours, and ICBMs for 2 minutes, feel the difference.
      1. -8
        19 March 2014 15: 45
        Quote: Vedmed_23
        Nuclear submarines have never been the main strike force of strategic nuclear forces, they are the second wave of a nuclear missile strike, the third strategic aviation, and the first respectively ICBM. Because The nuclear submarines are allowed to launch for 2 hours, and ICBMs for 2 minutes, feel the difference.

        Look at the number of carriers and it will immediately become clear what is "basic" and what is not.
      2. +4
        20 March 2014 01: 36
        Quote: Vedmed_23
        Nuclear submarines have never been the main strike force of strategic nuclear forces

        This statement is true for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation due to the small number of marine components, but for the USA, the SSBs are the basis of the strategic nuclear forces.
        Quote: Vedmed_23
        they (PLA) the second wave of a nuclear missile strike,

        Is not a fact. Depending on the received order for the use of RO.
        If "in the shortest possible time" - then according to the technical readiness of the complex and confirmation (unblocking signal) of the order to use nuclear weapons.
        If "at the appointed time" - then on the location of the submarine (flight time depends on the range).
        Quote: Vedmed_23
        Because The nuclear submarines are allowed to launch for 2 hours, and ICBMs for 2 minutes, feel the difference.

        Where did you get such "wild" standards? This is only the first R-11 SLBM, which was pulled out of the cabin of the submarine on the launch pad, had an 2 prelaunch time of hours, and after surfacing, minutes to launch.
        Modern ballistic missile systems have gone far from their progenitors. And with the adoption of solid-fuel SLBMs, they are minutes.
        One bond essential advantages of the SSBN is that they can attack the target from any azimuth. Land - only from 2's directions.
        In 2's, the SSBNs can make an irresistible launch from a pistol shot. Land - deprived of this opportunity.
        B-3's, the SSBN can attack a target from a short distance along an inclined (quasi-ballistic) trajectory. Land - they can’t, energy is not enough for reaching targets at long ranges (USA).
        Only way out - creation of a heavy global ICBM, devoid of all the above disadvantages. Perhaps it will be "Sarmat-M".
        Happy holiday, divers!
        1. +2
          20 March 2014 11: 10
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          The SSBN can attack a target from a short distance along an inclined (quasi-ballistic) trajectory. Land - they can’t, energy is not enough for reaching targets at long ranges (USA).

          In all the recent RK Topol-M, YaRS-24, Rubezh R-26, Sarmat - according to TZ-TU, high-energy-consuming quasi-stylish trajectories are laid, like Bulava ...

          Submariners, of course Glory and continued success in combat training!
    4. Russkiy53
      -1
      23 March 2014 00: 45
      You were replaced again, professor :)))? If, under the Traitor and the Drunkard, this technique was destroyed, then it is EFFECTIVE !!! all other opinions, g ... are not worth it! YET, BACK TO STORY "SATAN" :))) !!!
  7. misham1978
    -8
    19 March 2014 10: 18
    The meaning of the article in Ur triotism! What has no country to do with it, but the Chinese ???? they obviously have something nuclear-wheeled. Each country determines the appearance of its nuclear forces based on its capabilities and needs. Bet on mobile systems - increasing the stability of strategic nuclear forces. It makes no sense for the French and the British, like the Israelis, to create such chariots, small countries (especially the latter). The Americans are betting on nuclear submarines + mine installations + Air Force. They just do not really need such complexes. They have not just access to the sea - two oceans (complete freedom of action) and a powerful fleet. Another thing is China and the Russian Federation, a large territory, limited access to the sea, a modest Navy. As for railway installations, the thing is very interesting and necessary, but only in the conditions of the Cold War. It makes no sense to spend extra money on railway complexes. More likely economic than political. The late Marshal Sergeev made a bet on Poplar and was generally right. Enough of the current composition of missiles in mines, mobile systems, nuclear submarines + strategic aviation
    1. Associate Professor
      +8
      19 March 2014 10: 53
      Quote: misham1978
      The meaning of the article in Ur triotism! What has no country to do with it, but the Chinese ????

      I will not repeat myself, just copy the comment of Comrade Ascetic:
      China does not have full-fledged PGRK ,. The Chinese complex can only shoot with
      prepared on the patrol route of positions - we have already passed this stage a long time ago. Great is their time
      preparation for launch - our PGRKs have almost an order of magnitude less, thus the "survivability" of such complexes is very low. This means that they cannot organize constant watch and combat patrolling in hidden camouflaged positions in readiness for immediate launch. Compared to our PGRK, the preparation and launch of the Chinese one, I would describe as a manual sunset. The Americans and we will find them and destroy them before the start, against the Indians and other Chinese opponents, yes, I agree, the threat is serious.
      1. -11
        19 March 2014 10: 58
        copy-paste of Ascetic is not confirmed by any data, is sucked from a finger.

        The Americans and we will calculate and destroy them before the start, against the Indians and other Chinese opponents, yes. I agree. The threat is serious.

        How will Russia calculate them? Global Hawk or a pair of digital satellites?
        1. +4
          19 March 2014 14: 21
          Quote: professor
          How will Russia calculate them?

          and for what purpose do we calculate them?
          laughing
          Better assume that nuclear planning of Russian and Chinese strategic nuclear forces is carried out in one place ...
        2. +7
          19 March 2014 20: 31
          Quote: professor
          copy-paste of Ascetic is not confirmed by any data, is sucked from a finger.


          In this article, I have given some more "kolipasts" where it is clear on what data I made such conclusions. The most important lack of the presence of an automatic gyrocompass, and the main snag itself is not in it, but in the aiming system with a complex for recalculating flight tasks, which even your American friends and our Chinese cannot create, therefore they do not have a PGRK, the Americans, for example considered that it was too long and ineffective to carry the rocket on a trailer and then deploy it and aim it. To carry out a set of measures to enter the primary data was too long and ineffective, therefore, they abandoned the PGRK. The Chinese are more stubborn guys, maybe what will come of them in this regard ... they will solve this problem they will have a full-fledged PGRK "on duty" in minute readiness and not a rocket carried on a trolley to the launch site
          Here is the main difference between PGRK and a cart with a rocket

          1. +2
            20 March 2014 05: 53
            Thank you, dear Asket, you should write articles, thanks to you you begin to understand a little about the Strategic Missile Forces, and how you washed the Professor! Although in my opinion, too, is a very worthy opponent, although he is focused on "potential friends".
            1. -2
              20 March 2014 11: 16
              Quote: TELEMARK
              and how professors washed!

              You know better washed or not. I do not see his pearls from his Black List.

              About "You should write articles". Here are the pipes. The ascetic has already been caught that he even copied and pasted other people's comments from other resources and passed them off as his own. So he is not able to write anything of his own, only to distort someone else's and, as a rule, lay out without understanding. What to expect from a political worker? hi
              1. 0
                21 March 2014 05: 32
                Quote: professor
                . I don't see his pearl from his Blacklisted.


                Here is a pancake, and then he lied, he himself entered the emergency and now it turns out
                his emergency
                request
                Probably does not know that this function does not work for moderators.
            2. +2
              21 March 2014 06: 30
              Quote: TELEMARK
              Thank you, dear Asket, you should write articles, thanks to you you begin to understand a little about the Strategic Missile Forces, and how you washed the Professor! Although in my opinion, too, is a very worthy opponent, although he is focused on "potential friends".


              I do not write articles in principle, because I have no inclination or desire. Although, on some issues, frankly, it is tempting to explain something in more detail. Moreover, the topic is rather slippery. You can’t put everything out in the public domain, you have to search and verify particles of reliable information on the Internet (if you know where and whom in the subject) and upload what AT MY LOOK more or less corresponds to reality and characteristics based on personal experience in operating PGRK and knowledge gained in educational institutions.
              The main mistake of professors and people like them is the lack of understanding of the DIFFERENCE of BATTLE TASKS when comparing the pros and cons of different types of strategic nuclear forces and their SPECIFIC PURPOSE, well, the option of provoking an opponent to divulge useful information is not ruled out ... Therefore, the question is not relevant in terms of who washed or not who . In order to prove something, you have to refer to sources deserving, again, ON MY LOOK OF TRUST. And opponents like I think so as we see from his post, no specific data and links are given. however, like the professor in this case ...
  8. +9
    19 March 2014 11: 57
    Another comment to the author:
    But the current launch of Topol is interesting in at least two circumstances. First, 40 years have passed since the beginning of the development of this complex, but not a single country in the world, except Russia, has been able to create a “rocket on wheels” of this magnitude. The second - the purpose of the current launch, as the military put it, was "a test of promising military equipment for intercontinental ballistic missiles"
    The purpose of the launch, I think, was to test the ability to use ICBMs as a medium-range missile - from KapYar to Sary-Shagan about 3000 km.
    1. 0
      21 March 2014 23: 28
      the ICBM-RSD version has been worked out for a long time, but the extension of the guarantee for the old woman and the testing of new combat stages - yes!
  9. +12
    19 March 2014 15: 52
    Russia's weak spot is not a weapon. Russia's weak spot in corrupt officials and corrupt military circles.
  10. -1
    19 March 2014 21: 19
    Oh, this is a good thing. Like BABAAhnet, ooh!
  11. +2
    19 March 2014 23: 03
    What the hell (no other words) nuclear war fool We can’t predict the weather for 3 days, not only the consequences of even one blow ... These are weapons of deterrence and no more !!! Most likely, the idiot who used him first is waiting for the fate of his opponent !!!
  12. +1
    20 March 2014 00: 28
    Quote: Thorn
    What the hell (no other words) nuclear war fool We can’t predict the weather for 3 days, not only the consequences of even one blow ... These are weapons of deterrence and no more !!! Most likely, the idiot who used him first is waiting for the fate of his opponent !!!


    Let's hope so. But as in the saying "HOPE ON GOD, DO NOT FLAT YOURSELF". In order not to make a mistake, missiles are needed, a lot, preferably quickly.
  13. +2
    20 March 2014 01: 43
    Yes it is not for nothing that it says "where the Jew is there is trouble" is true.
  14. -4
    20 March 2014 14: 42
    The article simply shows pride in the "Elusive Joe" ... Oh, what missile systems "... no one in 40 years could ..." and so on. etc. But in reality ... Why "no one could" but simply because "he, this Joe and nafik are not needed by anyone." This is the REAL REASON for the lack of similarity in other armies. Let us examine in more detail the "advantages" of such a complex and in reality what these "advantages" are worth.
    1. Mobility. Stealth. All the apollogs of such complexes present this "mobility" and "stealth" as a very big plus.
    Consider the realities. And in reality, all the "mobility" of this complex is a circle with a radius of 150-200 km from the base ... That's how "mobility" is. Under such conditions, to destroy ALL complexes of the WHOLE DIVISION, detonate ONE (!) 2-4 megaton bomb over the basing center and all these barrels of gunpowder will burn like candles. Further secrecy. The current development of the radar capabilities of satellites makes it possible to scan the area regardless of the time of day, weather, and everything else with an accuracy of up to 20-30 cm ... And similar whoppers of the complex are seen on these scans at a glance, especially if they were not there before and suddenly appeared. .. Such scanning of the basing raions is already being carried out in full several times a day ... That's all the secrecy ... Even clumsy attempts to disguise these monsters with any nonsense such as nets do not solve the problem ... radio waves pass through this "disguise", Moreover, even inflatable dummies are recognized by radars ... It turns out that all their pluses have absolutely no real value in the real military world ... What other pluses are there? These monsters have NO MORE PLUSES.

    Now the cons.
    1. Vulnerability.
    Vulnerability to nuclear exposure. A powder barrel on wheels ignites from a nuclear explosion at a distance of even ten kilometers from the location of the explosion.
    Vulnerability to terrorist and sabotage operations. Knowing the routes, knowing the terrain, you can easily send a container of three armed guys there and they simply set fire to this powder keg at the right time with a machine gun.
    Vulnerability is purely mechanical (equipment breakdowns, accidental accidents, accidental casualties). If you drag a powder keg over the fields and forests for years (!), It is not known what happened to it already and will it fly when it is needed?
    2. The high cost of manufacture and most importantly operation. It is clear that if you build ONCE A RELIABLE MINING, you will not bear the cost of maintaining it except to clean the dust sometimes ... And then repair these tractors and refueling, and garages, and check the missiles for damage after each flight ... Maintenance displacement roads, disguise ...
    3. Efficiency. It is clear that these soil complexes CAN NOT, in principle, carry serious warheads flying at a sufficient range ...

    Here is a brief description of GLOBAL STUPIDness when adopting such weapons ... Having the experience of mine installations capable of withstanding the MULTIPLE DIRECT IMPACT of NUCLEAR WARS, the production and use of these systems looks STILL MORE SENSE, WASTE and STUPID.
    1. 0
      21 March 2014 21: 12
      Well, why a pocket doesn’t pull, if you accept the iron complexes, then you can of course cut the wheels, but not much, you never know what tomorrow will invent, the application practice will be similar.
    2. 0
      21 March 2014 23: 55
      You think so, and I understand the love of OSs, but look at Ascetic’s statements there, everything is pretty accurate. Therefore, the cons really indicated by you are all the same pluses. The poplar family can be the first wave, and the second and third. In one case, they will be vulnerable if you put them in Zapadentsev. Well, our Russian people when they try to bend it very hard ...
  15. -2
    21 March 2014 21: 09
    No one but the Russians was able to attach wheels to an intercontinental ballistic missile

    )))))
    Well, why the author writes nonsense --- there are similar complexes in China and were in the USA.
  16. -2
    21 March 2014 22: 26
    "Dongfeng-41" is a mobile complex, outwardly very similar to the Russian "Topol", but larger in size. The missile's flight range is from 10 to 14 thousand kilometers, while it is capable of carrying 10 individually guided nuclear warheads. In addition, the missile contains decoys imitating warheads that are designed to counter missile defense.

    http://army-news.ru/2010/10/kitajskie-raketnye-kompleksy/
    1. 0
      21 March 2014 23: 59
      In the United States, nothing of the kind happened, but China was created, but not deployed, and experimental specimens can be ignored.
      1. -1
        25 March 2014 13: 39
        BR "Dun-Fen-21A" (CSS-5) - monoblock solid-propellant rocket in a road-mobile version; firing range 2500 km; the capacity of the nuclear warhead is 250 kilotons. The combat strength deployed from 35 to 50 DF-21A units.
        Well, deployed for a long time ... the range for us is directly intercontinental ...... enough to cover.
      2. -1
        25 March 2014 13: 44
        http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/midgetman/midgetman.shtml
        the experience is of course unsuccessful ... but they have a good start, it’s another matter that they don’t have taiga) but everything is in order with apl.
    2. 0
      22 March 2014 23: 12
      Dear read all komenty. hi
  17. 0
    23 March 2014 00: 00
    I am not selenium in the rocket services, but purely logically I think that those who took poplars, etc. into service, and even more so those who performed development tasks, thought about those shortcomings that "I think so". However, you need to teach them something because it became scary. belay
  18. 0
    31 March 2014 23: 03
    And His Majesty the Internet said everything to the one who thinks so tongue
  19. 0
    5 May 2014 21: 31
    The one that Topol, has long been "Topol M" and "YARS" on the database.
  20. 0
    6 May 2014 11: 35
    The only troops that did not fight.
  21. 0
    8 May 2014 21: 21
    Overcoming the approach on the approach trajectory is certainly good, but the Americans have long understood this, and therefore they are encircling Russia with pro bases on all sides, and in the seas frigates are about to prevent poplars from flying up! I read somewhere that one of the main reasons for the change poplars per yars, which yars have a much higher rate of climb i.e. they manage to enter a ballistic trajectory before they are caught up by the interceptor missile.
  22. P-36M
    0
    14 July 2014 19: 13
    All is well, but only in the report of the Institute for National Strategy, prepared for the meeting of Mr. Medvedev with Obama, back in the 9th year it was recognized that American satellites are able to track the movement of not small-sized mobile complexes after they leave the already well-known "garages" ..