A few words about the new heavy rocket

59


Fig. from vpk


While on the Internet and in the corridors of the State Department (which is similar in terms of thinking), useless disputes about bilateral violations of the INF Treaty by the United States and Russia do not abate, which, without having any documentary evidence (with the exception of the American "targets"), looks pretty silly , the community has lagged slightly behind future changes in the field of global deterrence, relying only on existing developments. Incredible including the unsubstantiated claims of the States (including the September ones), although the extreme launch of the "Boundary" to the "necessary" range has put everything into as far as possible.

The current concept of the conduct of hostilities of the United States and NATO provides for the achievement of the maximum number of goals of a war or conflict extremely quickly and as efficiently as possible. In this vein, most samples of so-called. "smart weapons", high-precision weapons and weapons of rapid global strike." Characteristic features of the future use of such weapons are the speed of delivery to the target, controlled escalation of the conflict (to ensure the maximum reduction in the likelihood of reciprocal use of WMD), high accuracy and greater combat effectiveness of use (ideally: one shot - one hit target).

Despite the presence in the Doctrine of the Russian Federation of a postulate on the use of nuclear weapons in response to aggression with the use of conventional weapons, it also indicates that such an application is possible only if the state itself is threatened. Of course, in the conditions of the opening of a massive missile launch by the Russian warning system, the retaliatory strike will be carried out immediately. However, in conditions of a gradual increase in the intensity of the conflict, the choice of the moment and methods of strikes with strategic weapons is considerably difficult and, first of all, this is due to the undesirability of the escalation of the conflict into a nuclear one without the threat from the enemy to realize "total destruction".

Naturally, from a certain moment, the use of tactical nuclear weapons and strategic non-nuclear weapons, such as CD X-101, will begin. However, such a weapon in a conflict of medium intensity is not a panacea either. Tactical nuclear weapons solve tactical tasks. At the same time, the main blow will be to targets in Europe, but the structure of the state of the likely overseas enemy will not suffer. Non-nuclear cruise missiles are still insufficient and they possess a number of vulnerabilities of this class of weapons.

At the same time, the currently existing ICBM missile systems cannot solve problems in this phase of conflict development, since everyone has nuclear equipment. Although they have a number of fundamental advantages - a short time from the decision to launch, a short time to deliver the ammunition to the target, high reliability of delivery (lack of influence of enemy air defenses, high probability of overcoming missile defense using modern PCB facilities).

To expand the capabilities of the Russian Federation in such conditions, it was decided to equip the new heavy rocket being developed with non-nuclear military equipment. What some real and former military leaders have already mentioned in passing.

However, the principal novelty is not to put a high-explosive or fragmentation part on the rocket - this is too expensive and ineffective, especially for a heavy missile system.

As a result of the joint work of military and defense industry specialists, a fundamentally new solution was proposed. The novelty lies in the high combat effectiveness due to the merging of the three technologies: classical rocket, hypersonic planning and a fundamentally new warhead. All these technologies exist and are tested. Now they are being put into practice. The synthesis of technology promises to generate a very formidable and multifunctional weapon.

Rocket technologies exist and have been worked out for a long time. The design of a new heavy rocket is based on time-tested solutions and has all the advantages of such rockets. In addition, the removability of combat equipment will provide both the possibility of using classical nuclear BB and new warheads. This will ensure greater flexibility of combat use in various conditions of the situation and the development of military conflict.

The rocket is planned to be equipped with several third-generation hypersonic maneuvering units, the work on which is now being conducted in parallel with the already flying products of the second generation, which are currently undergoing tests for another RK. The first was the Albatross. The products of the second generation, now undergoing tests, are flying, but still have a number of fundamental childhood diseases of the new technology. In the third generation, the experience of failures has already been taken into account, new construction materials and SUs have been used on a new element base.

A few words about the new heavy rocket

The movement of the data of the aircraft is not recorded by the enemy SPRIAU, as the flight takes place below the radar of the action radar. The rocket will practically not leave the atmosphere, which will create difficulties not only for the ground level of the SPRNU, but also for the space one. And maneuvering blocks and bypassing the missile / air defense zones will prevent the calculation of the aiming point and the defeat of the blocks on the approach to the target.

The principal difference from the previously existing samples of such systems is a significant reduction in size and weight due to the use of new SU and new materials, which will allow to place on the rocket several such devices.

But the real "highlight" of the complex will be several versions of its CU. Along with the classic nuclear warheads of various capacities, a completely new one will be used. Previously, systems on such principles in the world have not been applied. Given that this warhead is non-nuclear, the effectiveness of its use is comparable to the use of ultra-low-power nuclear charge and far exceeds the use of the most powerful explosives. The kinetics makes an additional contribution to the power of the explosion, which is unattainable when using classical CDs with their warheads. Work on this topic is carried out in a very limited cooperation, with the integration of the results and the military and strategic justification is carried out by the 4 Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense. Naturally, the technical details of this work were not communicated not only to the Strategic Missile Forces Headquarters, but also to us, however, some of the stated and confirmed key capabilities of this system are really impressive.

It is hoped that at the new stage of the development of rocket technologies, the presence in service of several heavy missiles in the Shlyambur variant of equipment will make it possible to carry out along with nuclear effective non-nuclear destruction of fortified objects, command posts, power plants, dams and other especially important objects on the territory of the enemy with high probability and in the shortest possible time, which will significantly influence the armed conflict at various stages of its development.
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +10
    18 October 2014 09: 05
    It would be a good "Domokles sword" capable of cooling hot brainless heads in the Pentagon for a long time soldier
    1. +5
      18 October 2014 09: 23
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Would be a good "Domokles sword"

      Even if the power of each BB will be at the level of the "Daddy of all bombs", they will still need a bunch of them. Here is the problem - where to get so many media?
      And where and on what to place them?
      If only withdrawal from the agreement on the INF what request
      1. +11
        18 October 2014 13: 45
        Quote: Corporal
        If only withdrawal from the agreement on the INF

        At first glance, this is a way out for Russia, but only at first glance.
        Following us, ALL NATO countries will be armed, if not with their own, then with US missiles of a similar class, and this, together with the US sea-based cruise missiles, will make such a cloud of missiles that the locust flock will seem inconspicuous.
        How many times have they estimated the number of Tomahawks here on the site, and if the INF in NATO countries are added, then no air defense system will intercept all of them - it will simply not have time.
        I am not a pessimist, I just need to look soberly at such things.
        1. +5
          18 October 2014 14: 37
          Quote: Starover_Z
          At first glance, this is a way out for Russia, but only at first glance.

          RF functionally emerged from them: KR "Caliber" on submarines, surface ships in the waters of the World Cup, Mediterranean and the Caspian Sea.
          Plus a number of ICBMs along the "energy-consuming quasi-ballistic trajectory" with many small-sized BB (3, 6, up to 10 ...)
          1. +6
            19 October 2014 00: 25
            The treaty does not include sea-based missiles.
          2. Andy1111
            -1
            19 October 2014 22: 56
            what does the caliber have to do with it? what do you carry nonsense?
        2. +4
          18 October 2014 18: 51
          Maybe. However, do not forget that the point here is not the number of missiles, but the number of launchers - they determine how many missiles can be launched simultaneously. And here I would not say that the United States has more launchers than ours.
          1. +2
            20 October 2014 11: 31
            Just put the average range on boats and boats. And develop new missiles. For example, thermobaric. After all, they are commensurate in strength with a tactical atom, being a conventional weapon. Very comfortable and efficient.
  2. +3
    18 October 2014 09: 57
    "however, some of the stated and confirmed key capabilities of this system are really impressive."

    If this information is circulating in open sources, the author should have brought it in an article - I really wanted to be impressed. winked
    1. +14
      18 October 2014 11: 04
      Quote: SHILO
      If this information is circulating in open sources, the author should have brought it in an article - I really wanted to be impressed.


      Dankom is an informed comrade ... I advise you to read him, who is interested in this topic, Only about equipping a ground-based mine rocket with such a warhead raises questions in connection with the known coordinates of the silo ... If it appears on Makeev's website, it will most likely be the Leader sea rocket (the next modernization of "Sineva"). Such is the sea line of Makeevka Sineva-Liner-Leader. by the way Mace, the one that has 10 warheads maybe the embodiment of the Solomon idea combat unit with its own engine, and the gliding warhead - "birdie" Efremov has existed for a long time and was tested back in 2004.
      1. +4
        18 October 2014 12: 08
        Hello Stanislav! hi
        Glad to see you. For some reason I was sure that you would not miss this article. wink
        Can you throw off the coordinates of Makeev’s site? I would love to read.
        1. +10
          18 October 2014 13: 10
          Greetings, Konstantin! link on of.say Makeeva.
          The idea of ​​creating an NSNF as a counterbalance to the American ones has been hovering for a long time ... Unfortunately, we do not have so many nuclear submarines to re-equip them for the CD as Ohio. In terms of NSNF, the Americans are seriously ahead of us. In fact, in order to inflict damage on their numerous objects around the world and on their territory with non-nuclear weapons, appropriate carriers are needed that allow, with a high degree of probability, to complete a combat mission. Therefore, the idea of ​​using ICBMs as a carrier of NSNS (these warheads are nothing more than cruise missiles in fact) takes place especially since there are ICBMs capable of flying along a quasi-ballistic trajectory without leaving the atmosphere, and as an accelerator for block missiles in one bottle. For Europe and the Bl.Vostok with China, the mobile railway option "Rubezh" is possible, for the states of the sea on the basis of the Sineva line. But here we must take into account one point. that under the START-3 Treaty, even those not equipped with nuclear warheads are taken into account. Therefore, it is desirable to create something like Rubezhaiz because of which all the fuss) or to withdraw from the INF Treaty, to which the "war party" Shoigu, Ivanov, Chemezov have long been pushing.
          Perhaps this info is the result of information cover, because in the field of creating small-sized inconspicuous nuclear warheads we have progressed quite well. This allows us to put more charges on existing carriers with the same MGX without losing their power. The same Mace featured these three-six-ten warheads in the standard version of the carrier.
          1. 0
            18 October 2014 17: 49
            Thank you Stanislav for the link. Yes

            And if you find the time, help the gray kitten, whose idea of ​​equipping the NSWF ICBM doesn’t fit my head what How does this compare with the principle of "efficiency-cost"? Well, it's not in vain that the Pioneer was made in due time? And then only in nuclear equipment (despite the fact that it was an order of magnitude cheaper than an ICBM). As for me, all these "games" with NSNF on ICBMs are games, both in the US and in the Russian program, the half-forgotten word "rosspil" appears in this regard. request
            1. +2
              18 October 2014 18: 38
              Quote: SHILO
              Well, it's not in vain that the Pioneer was made in due time? And then only in nuclear equipment (despite the fact that it was an order of magnitude cheaper than an ICBM). As for me, all these "games" with NSNF on ICBMs are games


              you, dear colleague, about only nuclear "Pioneers", alas, are not right, see here -
              "On the issue of non-nuclear" sobering up "or something little-known about medium-range missiles",
              Karyagin Yuri Vasilievich
              Moscow, December 2006
              1. +3
                18 October 2014 19: 46
                Quote: Rus2012
                see here - "On the issue of non-nuclear" sobering up "or something little-known about medium-range missiles", Karyagin Yuri Vasilievich


                I read it. Carefully. But I did not find a word about the "Pioneer" in non-nuclear equipment (maybe there was an excerpt, I will still look at my leisure).
                In any case, thanks for the link - the article is informative.
                But! The question of "cost-effectiveness" remains open request
                1. +2
                  18 October 2014 22: 14
                  Quote: SHILO
                  In any case, thanks for the link - the article is informative.

                  This is not an article, but a whole work in the form of memoirs, an employee of the military department of the Central Committee ...
                  It hung on Rusarms and Yandex files, but however, alas and ah - everything disappeared: (((
                  If I find it at home, I’ll throw it in the tyndx cloud
                  1. +2
                    18 October 2014 22: 36
                    Quote: Rus2012
                    This is not an article, but a whole work in the form of memoirs, an employee of the military department of the Central Committee ...


                    Mmmmda what No wonder there was a feeling that I read the passage. If it doesn’t make it difficult (if you find it at home), drop the link - a comrade in an accessible language and with elements of humor (I love humor in serious works) writes about things that are very interesting to me.
                    Thanks in advance. respectfully hi
      2. +1
        18 October 2014 12: 53
        Quote: Ascetic
        Only about equipping a surface mine rocket with such a warhead raises questions in connection with the known coordinates of the silos

        Dear Ascetic hi
        I think ... if they plan to put in silos, then only as an option of one of a number of equipment ... and / or for preventive ... laughing
        There are no other thoughts ...
        there are a number of refinements from militarrusia, also one knowledgeable comrade;) -
        "Products of the second generation, which are now being tested (read 15Yu71), although they fly, still have a number of fundamental childhood diseases of the new technology. In the third generation (read for" Sarmat "), the experience of failures has already been taken into account, new construction materials and control systems have been used on the new element base. "
        1. +6
          18 October 2014 13: 26
          Quote: Rus2012
          I think ... if they plan to put in silos, then only as an option of one of a number of equipment ... and / or for preventive ...
          There are no other thoughts ...


          Even at Yuzhmash, in cooperation mainly MIT and NPOmash made a heavy rocket under the mine. In the ninety-first year on December 27 in Plesetsk it was planned to launch a prototype made at Yuzhmash, but the program was canceled due to liquidation Southern bush Ukraine, And the head to this rocket was developed just by the Efremites. Then the internal struggle began with Solomonov’s MIT for leadership as a result of which Solomon won with the support of Urinson, Dvorkin and Sergeyev, and received most orders for the same Universal-Topol) and Bulava. But the head of Ephraim remained and apparently these developments were pulled out of dusty tables and began to be used.
          in general, if not for the five-year plan of Gorbachev and the subsequent canoe by 2000. we would be seriously ahead of americans in many breakthrough technologies
      3. +3
        18 October 2014 13: 18
        We woke up ... Sineva and its modifications are already 20 years old, how can they fly along low trajectories at the border of the atmosphere. It was SDI "hello". Maybe they came up with maneuvering blocks. Previously, there were restrictions on the number of BBs, now I don't know.
      4. +1
        18 October 2014 21: 14
        Quote: Ascetic
        by the way the Mace, the one that on 10 warheads may be the embodiment of the Solomon’s idea of ​​a warhead with its own engine

        The mace is a strange rocket ... perhaps not just and not only a rocket, but also a missile. In perspective...
  3. +2
    18 October 2014 10: 03
    Even if on each rocket there will be 10 blocks with a new charge, and there will be 10 of them, then this is already 100 charges !!! This is serious! Indeed, in the event of a conflict they will shoot at critical objects. We don’t know much about what is being done, but it was announced at the top that we will have weapons that the West will have to reckon with us !!
  4. +3
    18 October 2014 10: 55
    All the same, the meaning of such a product in a non-nuclear version is not very clear.
    Who is it for? If it is for the main strategic adversary, then using it will even be harmful. In response, it will arrive with something from a nuclear warhead, even before they understand what it is.
    So does it make sense to give the enemy such a chance?
    Without this, only shooting at secondary targets at satellites and other Papuans remains. For the purpose of intimidation. But is such a weapon necessary for this?
    With all this, I do not deny the usefulness of developing and implementing the entire technical component. But it makes sense to do it only in nuclear execution. Since it is, after all, a deterrent.
    1. +3
      18 October 2014 11: 26
      Remember the events in Kyrgyzstan, when paratroopers with light weapons were transferred there to protect Russian facilities? Fortunately, everything ended well. But the option "paratroopers with RPGs and limited ammo versus serious guys with armored vehicles" was likely. And this is where the time factor comes in. As in Tskhinval. Even air support might be late.
      1. +1
        18 October 2014 12: 10
        How will the rocket protect such objects? Does it serve to defeat them? These are different things. Yes, and who decides tactical issues with strategic weapons?
        And even if such an option is allowed, then in this case there is a CD. A weapon that has been tested over the years to intimidate Aboriginal people.
        1. +2
          18 October 2014 13: 11
          Quote: bootlegger
          And who decides tactical issues with strategic weapons?

          ... dear colleague, if you closely follow the latest exercises of the Russian Armed Forces, especially the Strategic Missile Forces, you should have noticed the unusualness of the "raising" and the declared tasks of the Barnaul division: "solving problems for modern challenges", in brackets "protecting our southern allies and against radical Islamists, including the Taliban and the Isis, who entered into an alliance "...
          This means the RF Armed Forces will not stand on ceremony (as the initiates say, the development of preventive actions not on the main theater of operations with the use of nuclear weapons) ... That is without any frills, but extremely bloody and cruel ...

          3,14 I have already been warned that everything will be nepodetski -
          Russia reserved the right to a military response if air strikes by an international coalition led by the United States are launched against objects of government troops and infrastructure of the Bashar al-Assad regime, WND.com reports September 29.

          On the sidelines of negotiations with UN representatives, Russia expressed concern that coalition strikes on Syrian territory are a violation of international law. Russia warned that it could potentially strike back if the United States or Arab countries bomb any targets in Syria controlled by that country's government.

          Officials told WND that they had no information about the seriousness of the Russian threat and whether Moscow had in mind the possibility of delivering a direct military strike against the coalition forces or whether it would help Assad’s regime with military equipment and weapons.

          It is also reported that the Russian and Iranian armed forces are on high alert due to the situation in Syria.
        2. +1
          18 October 2014 14: 21
          Quote: bootlegger
          How will the rocket protect such objects?

          Striking at clusters of manpower and firepower, command posts, bases and other objects.
          1. 0
            18 October 2014 21: 47
            KR is much cheaper. What prevents them from doing this?
            1. 0
              19 October 2014 00: 31
              Quote: bootlegger
              What prevents them from doing this?


              Time. While they fly, they will not be needed.
    2. +1
      18 October 2014 12: 59
      Quote: bootlegger
      In response, something with nuclear B

      ... will not fly ...
      They don’t have time to detect and react -
      The movement of the data of the aircraft is not recorded by the enemy SPRIAU, as the flight takes place below the radar of the action radar. The rocket will practically not leave the atmosphere, which will create difficulties not only for the ground level of the SPRNU, but also for the space one. And maneuvering blocks and bypassing the missile / air defense zones will prevent the calculation of the aiming point and the defeat of the blocks on the approach to the target.

      and if you start to do something, the threat of "massive use of nuclear weapons" will be announced, the command at the beginning of which will be "the first launch of a potential enemy's ICBMs" bully
      1. +4
        18 October 2014 18: 53
        ... will not fly ...
        They don’t have time to detect and react -

        Why do not have time? Armavir RTU has detected Sparrow launches in the Mediterranean, why aren’t ours? But they will react not in response, but in response. For us, who launched missiles in non-nuclear equipment that would not cause unacceptable damage to the enemy, this will no longer be important ...
        and if you start to do something, the threat of "massive use of nuclear weapons" will be declared, the command at the beginning of which will be "start of a potential enemy's ICBMs"

        Would you be kind enough to explain what this threat is? "Poplar", which is not quite light? So what?
        The model of action is highlighted as follows: we launch carriers with non-nuclear warheads, they yes, break through missile defense and hit some local targets. Profit
        In real time, we get the answer with the nuclear submarines and the B-52 with the most nuclear warheads. We detect the start of missiles and launch everything that is in the plan of the first nuclear weapon and has not yet been destroyed.
        Question: who provoked the Armageddean?
        It is thought, after all, that all these Pepelians in hypersound should be able to do two things: guaranteed to break through the missile defense system and deliver nuclear weapons to the target. Otherwise, the game is not worth the candle ...
        1. +1
          18 October 2014 22: 23
          Quote: Moore
          Why do not have time? Armavir RTU detected Sparrow launches in the Mediterranean Sea,

          these launches were declared ballistic, if you remember ...
          And Yars / Topol-M / Bulava / Sarmat - can not leave the stratosphere on the so-called. "flat" to arrive. The height of such "spans" is significantly lower than 100 km, between 40-70. That's the whole difference. Moreover, the defeat of key control points neutralizes the possibility of a response and paralyzes the will. There are no nuclear detonations - a weak analogue of the Yankee's "dead hand" - does not work ...
          Calling "friend Vova" - will bring the answer - that the nuclear missiles did not start, but if at least one of yours takes off, this will trigger a "massive response"
          1. 0
            18 October 2014 22: 43
            about -
            these pepelats in hypersound should be able to do two things: guaranteed to break through missile defense and deliver to the target nuclear warheads.

            they themselves know how. But at the same time, other possibilities open up in the form of non-nuclear equipment ...
          2. 0
            19 October 2014 00: 18
            And Sea Sparrow does not fly above 10 km, however.
          3. 0
            19 October 2014 08: 32
            Yes, Sparrow mimic Sajil-type missiles, or so their owners say. And most likely it rises to the stratosphere. But ground-based radar is not the only detection method.
            During the threatened period, the grouping of Keyholes and other dirty tricks will be oriented in such a way as to see the entire theater of operations constantly and the launch of the rocket will be recorded online.
            And will the adversaries be sure that "Vova's friend" will simply not lie to them? The cost of making a mistake is too fatal. So they'll launch whatever they can ...
            The only thing that came to mind was the need for using MS without nuclear warheads in order to replenish the number of the latter as a result of any reductions in contracts and due to own stupidity.
            But what is it then? Again the deployment of regiments and divisions reduced by the "reformers"?
            1. 0
              19 October 2014 11: 37
              Quote: Moore
              Again the deployment of regiments and divisions reduced by the "reformers"?

              Fortunately, the "reformers" did not have time to slaughter more 3 divisions, there are 12 of them left! But we planned to leave 9!
              The very same Barak Huseynovich helped a bit in this, insisting on leaving 800 carriers, our people wanted - 700. That's why they survived.

              Koneno, some divisions remained in the 3 regiment. But, as they say, there were bones - the meat will grow ...
              But Yabb, in abundance, the main thing is a lot of weapons materials. Even without building and enrichment - for decades to come.
            2. 0
              19 October 2014 12: 17
              Quote: Moore
              And will the adversaries be sure that "Vova's friend" will simply not lie to them?

              ... well, they’ll call after the blow, or during ... :) because no nuclear detonation, questions are being removed.
              Yes, by the way, the strike is unmassed, of the order of several multi-headed ICBMs. The Yankees won that enough 12 attacks on key Russian command and control nodes are enough.

              About early detection ...
              People who served in the forces of the rocket and space forces either know or surmise that everything is not so simple. It's one thing - in clear weather, with a pre-announcement of launches and classic starts ...
              It’s completely different, taking into account the windows, weather conditions, time of day, using a complex of camouflage and counteraction (not without reason the Yankees insist on not using these funds in peacetime).
              The uninvolved and other "blah-blah" under disguise and opposition understand only the maskets and inflatable stooltkin units :))) That's not all, to put it mildly ...

              I will just mention in this context the repeated launches of Lavochkin's supersonic intercontinental missile missile "Storm", which ALL remained outside the scope of the American SPYAU detection. And he starts off as an ICBM ...

              Draw conclusions:
              - flight speed 3М, of the order of 3000km / hour
              - flight altitude - 25-32km
              - range 7000-8500km
              And you say "Sparrov", he obviously flew over 30 thousand meters vertically ...
  5. 0
    18 October 2014 11: 11
    Quote: bootlegger
    All the same, the meaning of such a product in a non-nuclear version is not very clear.
    Who is it for? If it is for the main strategic adversary, then using it will even be harmful. In response, it will arrive with something from a nuclear warhead, even before they understand what it is.
    So does it make sense to give the enemy such a chance?
    Without this, only shooting at secondary targets at satellites and other Papuans remains. For the purpose of intimidation. But is such a weapon necessary for this?
    With all this, I do not deny the usefulness of developing and implementing the entire technical component. But it makes sense to do it only in nuclear execution. Since it is, after all, a deterrent.

    I think that the point in bypassing "agreements" with a potential adversary is shorter than misleading, but in fact they stuff a dozen yadrenbatons into a new missile
  6. +2
    18 October 2014 11: 28
    a new heavy rocket is needed as air, because Satan is morally obsolete, a replacement with more modern characteristics is required. but this is a matter of time and money.
  7. +1
    18 October 2014 13: 59
    Quote: Posted by Dancomm
    The missile is planned to be equipped with several third-generation hypersonic maneuvering units,

    Hard to believe ..
    1. The theory of "hypersonic" maneuvering motion has not yet been worked out (both the propulsion system and the materials and the guidance system)
    2. If (!) Will use GZMB, then you will have to FORGET about the false blocks (warheads), because as soon as the GZMB starts "maneuvering", the false targets will immediately lag behind, selection has taken place.
    Well, they will not put the same remote control and control system for false purposes. Otherwise, the filling will be VERY expensive
    3. A flight at gs speed in the upper layers is energy-intensive, which means either the range decreases or the payload decreases (- weight: remote control, fuel, SU)
    4.control and guidance, at T = from 1000К, on the terminal ends of the block and the plasma cloud, what will happen is practically eliminating the transmission of the radar signal, GPS (GLONAS), astronavigation, operation of the ECO.
    ALL BG ICBMs brake before entering the atmosphere to correct and reduce the CVO
    ===================
    As a point-strike weapon (single), yes, probably.
    But against which countries to dodge?
    Against the USA, NATO- nuclear war.
    Against ISIS? And they "Scud" can at least intercept?
    1. +3
      18 October 2014 14: 42
      Quote: opus
      3. A flight at gs speed in the upper layers is energy-intensive, which means either the range decreases or the payload decreases (- weight: remote control, fuel, SU)

      The large mass of the Mace, in relation to the Trident, with the same casting weight, is precisely due to the flat path of the flight of its warheads.
      Quote: opus
      4.control and guidance, at T = from 1000К, on the terminal ends of the block and the plasma cloud, what will happen is practically eliminating the transmission of the radar signal, GPS (GLONAS), astronavigation, operation of the ECO.

      This issue has been resolved. As a kind of antenna, the ionized plasma cloud itself is used.
      1. 0
        18 October 2014 21: 03
        "This issue has been resolved" ////

        Solved theoretically?
        About testing guided hypersonic missiles or warheads immediately becomes
        famous. Such things are impossible to hide. The Americans had several tests:
        part successful, part failure.
        Russia, as far as we know, guided hypersonic missiles in the past 15 years
        not experienced. Maybe in the Soviet period there was something ...
        1. +3
          18 October 2014 21: 25
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The Americans had several tests:

          And a film was shot about each of them together with Discovery ....

          In general, as far as I remember, the Americans scolded a lot about the launches along the Plesetsk-Sary-Shagan and Kapustin Yar-Sary-Shagan trajectories. c) Igor Egorov.

          Do you know why you swore? Because the Americans could not control these trajectories. This is near the Kura "hydrographic vessels" and "transport planes" hover like flies near ... honey, and then a breakdown ...
          1. +1
            18 October 2014 21: 48
            I'm not talking about maneuvering warheads. Maneuvering can be done. By pre-set
            timers. The small nozzle sideways will slightly "rock" the warhead, making it
            wave-like trajectory. But remote control of maneuvering is still unrealistic.
            A kinetic killer was made against maneuvering BGs. He has a GOS. From the moment when
            he spotted the BG, he attacks, repeating her maneuvers with his engine with nozzles.
            This animal was successfully tested. But in conditions of mass strike, the killer is ineffective.
            A missile defense missile with a "killer" is very expensive and is made against single launches of ICBMs.
            1. 0
              18 October 2014 23: 24
              Quote: voyaka uh
              he spotted the BG, he attacks, repeating her maneuvers with his engine with nozzles.

              alas, dear colleague, to calculate the convergence and fulfill it - there will not be enough energy and the overload capabilities of a missile defense ...
              The famous cm3 is not able to work out the "calculated miss" over 3 km per 100 km distance, i.e. over 3%
            2. +1
              19 October 2014 00: 37
              "This animal" was successfully tested on a non-maneuvering target flying along a ballistic trajectory.
              1. 0
                19 October 2014 11: 16
                It's right. But the interception is carried out in the middle of the trajectory,
                and maneuvering the BG - on the final.
                1. +1
                  19 October 2014 12: 31
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  But the interception is carried out in the middle of the trajectory,

                  Dear colleague, and this complicates the interception ...
                  Because ALL solid-propellant ICBMs have wide, unique, individual acceleration characteristics both in pitch-course and in speed ... Their main task is to bring the payload to a "descent funnel" at a sufficiently accelerated speed, but it doesn't matter how. M. b. in "pulsating mode" ...;)))
                  1. 0
                    19 October 2014 18: 36
                    But though individual, but ballistic
                    trajectories. And they are miscalculated by a computer and missile defense
                    is also launched according to the "unique, individual"
                    ballistic trajectory. At the point of approach from the rocket
                    the "killer" is undocked with its own engine and maneuvering nozzles
                    and rams ICBMs. But of course, it is easy on paper. Any
                    a mistake leads to a miss. ICBM trajectory should be
                    high enough. Celebrate "50-50" only with rockets
                    across the Pacific Ocean (presumably Chinese and S. Korean).
                    "50 to 50" means that 2 missile defense missiles are launched each ICBM.
                    But ... dashing trouble is the beginning. The missile defense system is still "in diapers," and the ICBM is already 60 years old?
      2. +1
        18 October 2014 22: 41
        Quote: Jurkovs
        The large mass of the Mace, in relation to the Trident, with the same casting weight, is precisely due to the flat path of the flight of its warheads.

        1. This shows the worst energy performance of BRs, both for fuel (PEG (PEG / NG75) instead of adipate polyglycol (PGA), for empty construction mass (carbon-epoxy composite INSTEAD of a Kevlar-epoxy composite) and SU (RF computer and Mk6 SU with BTsVEM, as in the absence of a nozzle nozzle, a telescopic sliding aerodynamic needle.
        2. Who told you about the nonsense with the Throw weight "the same" mass?
        Mace 1150 kg, UGM-133A "Trident-II" D5 = 2800 kg (more than 2 (!) times MORE, with a ratio of SV: 36,8 tons to 56,8 tons!
        if you are talking about UGM-96A "Trident-I" C4: 1280 kg / 33,142tn-SO this is 1979 model, meal, REMOVED from service. And even then in terms of energy it is "cooler" Bulava

        Bulava is like the younger brother of Topol-M (the components are much unified and produced there by "VZ").


        3. From point A to TB, you can fly along a ballistic trajectory with a high Apogee, or you can fly with a low one.
        How energy allows
        And at Topol-M, the start, despite the "mortar" kick, is visually sluggish

        Compare with Minuteman III ICBM

        Trident

        with 0: 40

        Trident, in comparison with Topol-M is heavier and underwater start, as well as overcoming the division of media impose certain restrictions
        Quote: Jurkovs
        This issue has been resolved. As a kind of antenna, the ionized plasma cloud itself is used.

        Come on?
        Poor fellows in the Unions, as well as Progress (and Buran sunk into the summer), and about (!) X-37В (as well as Falcon HTV-2) - apparently about this DO NOT KNOW (did not know)?
        CHADE !!
        What to suffer with ISN and astronavigation?
        Lead the warhead ICBM on a radio beam and a whisker !!!
        So for your reference: they are trying to solve it either by pulsation of the plasma field, by measuring the EMF (science fiction so far), or by using an ultra-long pin antenna (front or back, this is really lucky) ... but not very successfully so far
        1. +1
          18 October 2014 23: 04
          Quote: opus
          but not very well yet

          But what about the radio command control of the 53T6 gazelles and their descendants - with crazy accelerations and plasma from the second second?

          Rate of climb - 30000 m height per 5-6 s
          Maximum overloads:
          - 210G longitudinal
          - 90 G transverse
          Developed speeds:
          - 4000-5500 m / s
          1. +2
            18 October 2014 23: 27
            Quote: Rus2012
            but what about the radio command control of the 53T6 gazelles and their descendants

            1.And do you know about 53T6 SU? I say no
            2.No "plasma" is present at 2 seconds of flight 2 x 100 (with overloads exceeding 100 g -ABOUT THIS ESSENCE BELOW) X 9.8m / s2 = 1960 m / s = 1,96km / s =5,82 (IT WOULD give 100g IMMEDIATELY, but 100g is neither 1 nor 2 second (there are no miracles) 100 before the end of the marching section (there is no atmosphere, the same weight is left, thrust is maximum).
            ICBMs
            Quote: Rus2012
            Rate of climb - 30000 m height per 5-6 s


            30000m / 6 s = 5000 m / s = at the "finish"
            3.And is it necessary to have a command and control system for a nuclear warhead in 10 ct, just shoot there (the usual calculation of the probabilistic passage zone) where the warhead should fly
            Quote: Rus2012
            - 210G longitudinal

            not 200, but 100 !!!
            What one typo leads to

            On the website www.russianforces.org, where information was posted about the December 5 2006 test of the 53Т6 A-135 missile defense system from the Sary-Shagan test site (Kazakhstan), visitors began to calculate the speed of the Russian missile defense. The reason for arithmetic exercises was incorrect reprint from Russian sources. One of them writes that he "read about this news in translation into Spanish, where it was said that 53Т6 reaches an altitude of 39 km in 5 seconds. " Calculations started, as a result of which Western experts came to the conclusion that the Gazelle had a speed of the order of 8 km / s, experiencing overloads up to 200 g. “This missile has outstanding characteristics, its speed by 30% exceeds the speed of the American Sprint missile, astonished experts write. And the thing is that the translator of the Spanish news agency mixed up the numbers 9 and 0 on the keyboard of his computer, which, as you know, are located nearby. In the Russian original, the height is not 39, but 30 km, and reaches her missile defense not in 5 seconds, but just over 5 secondsThen missile defense is undermining.
    2. +1
      18 October 2014 15: 03
      Quote: opus
      If (!) Will use the GZMB, then you will have to FORGET about the false blocks (warheads), because as soon as the GZMB begins to "maneuver", the false targets will immediately lag behind, the selection has taken place


      it is easy to do "maneuvering false targets" - they already fly at the same speed as the MBB, it is enough to make the body "aerodynamically unstable" (let's say asymmetric along the longitudinal axis) - it will rotate with the given parameters, including around the "imaginary aerodynamic axis ". To figure out that this is a false maneuvering - you need to scan this fast target with an offensive speed and frequency, and not "three serifs": the start moment, intermediate, before entering the atmosphere ...
      1. +2
        18 October 2014 22: 59
        Quote: Rus2012
        it is easy to "maneuver false targets" - they already fly at the same speed as the MBB,

        Say the same. in the false targets also the WEAPON uranium / plutonium you push? (substances are by no means light), or lead? OTHERWISE INSTANTLY SELECTION in the field of the Earth's gravity and environmental resistance.
        And what is WEIGHT (empty, parasitic) for false purposes? Correctly-lowering PN = NOT FULFILLMENT of a combat mission
        Quote: Rus2012
        , it is enough to make the body "aerodynamically unstable" (let's say asymmetric along the longitudinal axis)

        1.It will break immediately by aerodynamic drag and centrifugal, orientation = 0
        He almost died, but only 1M

        2. The lifting force will also randomly (or cyclically) change with a change in the angle of attack, will lead the LC -fig knows where
        3. Such a yule - easy to select (false target) - and spit on it.
        Do not confuse pitch and course maneuver with random rotation
        Quote: Rus2012
        and not "three serifs": start moment, intermediate, before entering the atmosphere ...

        1. Serif occurs at the launch of the ICBM radar ICBM and the satellite constellation, as well as the ES (for torch and IR radiation): draft in 900- 1200KN, this is not for you muhra, torch phon
        2. Loss is possible at the end of the march section.
        3. But to the apogee (which has already been calculated), the trajectory is known.
        4: A Sustainable Goal for ICBMs

        Fortunately, they already "know" where it will fall
        5.Here to intercept it while on the attack site is not very
        And the thing is the interceptor and distances and enormous speed
        1. +3
          18 October 2014 23: 16
          Quote: opus
          Say the same. in the false targets also the WEAPON uranium / plutonium you push?

          Have you ever seen a thread of BB simulators, the so-called. "false"?
          So I tell you, they are much smaller in size and weight. Nevertheless, they imitate a real BB so that observers cannot distinguish until they fix it at the crash site. There is even such fun on "Kura" - a bet on guessing. As a rule, not a fig.
          There, the 3,14ndos did not understand what the Chinese had recently started up for the BB - an imitator or really maneuvering.
          1. +1
            18 October 2014 23: 38
            Quote: Rus2012
            Have you ever seen a thread of BB simulators, the so-called. "false"?

            Yes.
            Quote: Rus2012
            So I inform you, they are significantly smaller in size and weight.

            By weight -NO, by the strength of the frontal resistance SAME



            otherwise immediately selection (the difference in speed in the field of gravity and due to atmospheric resistance




            Trajectories of three objects (launch angle - 70 ° A no difference though falling, Distance - distance, Height - height). The black object does not experience any resistance and moves along a parabola, the Stokes Law acts on the blue object, the Newton’s viscosity law acts on the green object


            Quote: Rus2012
            There is even such fun on "Kura" - a bet on guessing. As a rule, not a fig.

            Perhaps that’s why they are called imitators: the one who imitates
            device, installation, program, etc., reproducing as accurately as possible
            Quote: Rus2012
            What kind of BB did the Chinese recently launch - an imitator or really maneuvering.

            With a sheaf of false targets (imitators)?

            or single object?
            and the Chinese will guess?
  8. +3
    18 October 2014 14: 37
    Two objections to the author of the article. Under the terms of the latest Strategic Missile Treaty, Russia has long come close to the permitted limit both in terms of carriers and warheads. Under such conditions, each new carrier will be equipped only with a nuclear warhead. And second, what is the point of equipping a warhead with a charge comparable to a nuclear one, when you can equip just a nuclear one.
    1. 0
      18 October 2014 17: 36
      Quote: Jurkovs
      what's the point of equipping a warhead with a charge comparable to a nuclear one, when you can equip just a nuclear

      ... for non-nuclear sobering up of a potential aggressor
      1. +1
        18 October 2014 21: 54
        He will not even understand this, there will not be enough time. He will simply answer with nuclear.
        If you decide to hit first, then you need to hit so that the enemy could not already answer.
        Why just make him angry?
    2. 0
      18 October 2014 23: 56
      Quote: Jurkovs
      And second, what is the point of equipping a warhead with a charge comparable to a nuclear one, when you can equip just a nuclear one.

      1. The first to use a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear country (like not so much, the Russian Federation is not the United States) And although Russia (unlike the USSR or China, for example) is included in the SIX of States, not first non-applicants, and the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, unlike the airborne forces of ISRAEL and PAKISTAN, is permissible (reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states in case of aggression using conventional weapons.)

      http://news.kremlin.ru/ref_notes/461
      It is unlikely that you can always / need to spank JBCH (for ISIS, for example)
      2. APPLIED, tk:
      By taking such cautious steps today, the US administration can hope that it will be able to create a world, albeit not completely free of nuclear weapons, but at least one where there are fewer of these weapons, where they are better protected, and where nuclear "status" means little.

      =============
      Remember the fantastic story (1969 and 1973), where both ours and the Americans invented radiation, making chain reaction impossible at all and both countries were left without nuclear weapons?
      But what then?
  9. +1
    18 October 2014 15: 36
    Good, kind and everyone (except for "partners") a clear name - Shlyambur! They can't even translate it!
  10. 0
    19 October 2014 01: 31
    It's a strange thing. It may be easier to fix something in the conservatory, so that the Anglo-Saxons would not fool us for any reason and in any situation, instead of designing something “unparalleled” in the field of weapons.
  11. +1
    19 October 2014 01: 51
    Quote: voyaka uh
    he attacks, repeating her maneuvers

    Are you quoting fiction? Or is it real missile defense missiles ??
  12. 0
    19 October 2014 06: 27
    Russia cannot do without a nuclear missile "shield" if not a "row" ... for now.
  13. 0
    19 October 2014 15: 55
    The topic is relevant, judging by the debate. Glad for Makeyevtsy with their notion.
  14. 0
    19 October 2014 16: 37
    Ladies and gentlemen, please enlighten. What will sworn friends do when launching a heavy ballistic missile? It will then be blown off the nuclear ashes from the otvetka and think - IT was non-nuclear, and finally flew to the wrong place ...
    1. Andy1111
      -1
      20 October 2014 14: 42
      They won’t do anything. With a single start, the MO will transmit information, and he will report to the President and they will think what to do.
  15. 0
    19 October 2014 19: 51
    what does it do? us on the head with a nuclear club, and we will fight back with a thermobaric stick ??? even if we are the first to launch such a missile of necessity, how will some "partners" distinguish it from a nuclear one? in flight, it is not clear which warheads are on the rocket. and if we are already talking about a nuclear strike, then a nuclear one !!! or it was invented by our failure. if we do not have the required number of nuclear warheads, we have to invent something ... thanks to Mikhalsergeich, with his moratorium on nuclear tests ...
  16. 0
    20 October 2014 00: 05
    Quote: HitMaster
    what does it do? us on the head with a nuclear club, and we will fight back with a thermobaric stick ??? even if we are the first to launch such a missile of necessity, how will some "partners" distinguish it from a nuclear one? in flight, it is not clear which warheads are on the rocket. and if we are already talking about a nuclear strike, then a nuclear one !!! or it was invented by our failure. if we do not have the required number of nuclear warheads, we have to invent something ... thanks to Mikhalsergeich, with his moratorium on nuclear tests ...



    Well, if it’s not a nuclear warhead, not a high-explosive one, or a fragmentation one, then only the kinetic remains.

    And I did not understand about the radar. How can you not get on the radar screens? They are not flying 5 meters above the ground. And everything above is fixed already.
  17. 0
    20 October 2014 02: 42
    There is an option to create a precedent: the country puts such missiles into service, begins to use them often, but then, as Winnie the Pooh said, I’m a cloud-cloud-cloud ... I don’t even notice the bees.
  18. 0
    21 October 2014 10: 01
    It would be interesting to place these maneuvering units on satellites. This would be more successful than the idea of ​​American kinetic weapons (here I mean placing tungsten rods in Earth orbit)
  19. -1
    23 October 2014 10: 54
    Quote: bootlegger
    All the same, the meaning of such a product in a non-nuclear version is not very clear.
    Who is it for? If it is for the main strategic adversary, then using it will even be harmful. In response, it will arrive with something from a nuclear warhead, even before they understand what it is.
    So does it make sense to give the enemy such a chance?
    Without this, only shooting at secondary targets at satellites and other Papuans remains. For the purpose of intimidation. But is such a weapon necessary for this?
    With all this, I do not deny the usefulness of developing and implementing the entire technical component. But it makes sense to do it only in nuclear execution. Since it is, after all, a deterrent.

    The point is to cheaply and angrily dispose of the old medium and replace it with a modern one without violating the quantitative framework of OSV-3. Turning the Taliban village into a kebab of a thermobaric warhead in the event of an attack on the CSTO allies, or when the Islamists attack the Russian military base; for example, in Kyrgyzstan during the next coup. The charge delivery time factor in modern conflicts is crucial. With one such launch, a combat mission can be completed without raising quick reaction troops into the air. smile