American CIM-10 "Bomark" anti-aircraft missile system of extra long range

90
American CIM-10 "Bomark" anti-aircraft missile system of extra long range


US monopoly on nuclear weapon 29 ended on August 1949 after a successful test at the test site in the Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan of a stationary nuclear explosive device. Simultaneously with the preparation for the tests was the development and assembly of samples suitable for practical use.

The United States believed that the Soviet Union would not have atomic weapons until at least the mid-50s. However, already in 1950 there were nine in the USSR, and at the end of 1951, 29 RDS-1 atomic bombs. October 18, 1951 the first Soviet aviation the RDS-3 atomic bomb was first tested by dropping it from a Tu-4 bomber.

The Tu-4 long-range bomber, based on the B-29 American bomber, was able to strike at US forward bases in Western Europe, including in England. But his combat range was not enough to attack the United States and return.

Nevertheless, the United States military-political leadership was aware that the appearance of intercontinental bombers in the USSR was only a matter of the near future. These expectations were soon fully met. At the beginning of 1955, the M-4 bombers (chief designer V. M. Myasishchev) began to operate in the long-range units of the Long-Range Aviation, followed by: the improved 3М and Tu-95 (OKB A. N. Tupolev).


Soviet long-range bomber M-4


The base of the air defense of the continental USA at the beginning of the 50's was jet interceptors. For air defense throughout the vast territory of North America in 1951, there were about 900 fighters adapted to intercept Soviet strategic bombers. In addition to them, it was decided to develop and deploy anti-aircraft missile systems.

But on this issue, the opinions of the military are divided. The ground forces defended the concept of object protection based on the Nike-Ajax and Nike-Hercules medium-range and long-range air defense systems. This concept assumed that air defense facilities: cities, military bases, and industry, must each hide behind their own batteries of anti-aircraft missiles, tied into a common control system. The same concept of building air defense was adopted in the USSR.


The first American mass medium-range MIM-3 Nike-Ajax


Representatives of the Air Force, on the contrary, insisted that the “object defense” in the age of atomic weapons was not reliable, and offered ultra-long-range air defense systems capable of carrying out “territorial defense” - preventing adversary planes even close to the objects to be defended. Given the size of the United States, such a task was perceived as extremely important.

The economic evaluation of the draft proposed by the Air Force showed that it is more expedient, and will be released approximately 2,5 times cheaper with the same probability of defeat. At the same time, fewer staff were required, and a large area was protected. Nevertheless, the Congress, wanting to get the most powerful air defense, approved both options.

The uniqueness of the Bomark air defense missile system was that from the very beginning it was developed as a direct element of the NORAD system. The complex did not have its own radar or control systems.

Initially it was assumed that the complex should be integrated with the existing early-warning radars, which were part of NORAD, and the SAGE (Eng. Semi Automatic Ground Environment) system, a system of semi-automatic interceptors coordinating by programming their autopilots on the radio with computers on the ground. Which led interceptors to the approaching enemy bombers. The SAGE system, which worked according to the NORAD radars, ensured the interception of the interceptor to the target area without the participation of the pilot. Thus, the Air Force needed to develop only a missile integrated into the already existing interceptor targeting system.

From the very beginning, CIM-10 Bomark was designed as an integral element of this system. It was assumed that the rocket, immediately after launching and climbing, would turn on the autopilot and go to the target area, automatically coordinating the flight through the SAGE control system. Homing worked only when approaching the goal.


The scheme of application of the CIM-10 Bomark


In fact, the new air defense system was an unmanned interceptor, and for it at the first stage of development it was intended to be reusable. The drone was supposed to use air-to-air missiles against the attacked aircraft, then make a soft landing using a parachute rescue system. However, due to the excessive complexity of this option and the delaying of the process of fine-tuning and testing, it was abandoned.

As a result, the developers decided to build a one-time interceptor, equipping it with a powerful fragmentation or nuclear warhead with a capacity of about 10 CT. According to calculations, this was enough to destroy an airplane or a cruise missile when a missile interceptor missed 1000 m. Later, other types of nuclear warheads with a 0,1 - 0,5 Mt capacity were used to increase the likelihood of hitting the target.



According to the design of the missile "Bomark" was a projectile (cruise missile) of the normal aerodynamic configuration, with the placement of the steering surfaces in the tail section. Swivel wings have a sweep leading edge 50 hail. They do not rotate entirely, but have a triangular aileron at the ends - each console around 1 m, which provide flight control along the course, pitch and roll.



The launch was carried out vertically, using a liquid launch accelerator, which accelerated the rocket to a speed of M = 2. The starting accelerator for the “A” missile was a rocket engine operating on kerosene with the addition of asymmetric dimethyl hydrazine and nitric acid. This engine, which worked about 45 seconds, accelerated the rocket to the speed at which the ramjet was activated at an altitude of about 10 km, after which two of its own direct-flow Marquardt RJ43-MA-3 engines running on gasoline with octane 80 began to work.

After launching the missile defense, it flies vertically to the height of the cruise flight, then turns around to the target. By this time, the tracking radar detects it and switches to auto tracking using an on-board radio responder. The second, horizontal part of the flight, occurs at a cruising altitude in the target area. The SAGE air defense system processed the data of the locators and transmitted them via cables (laid underground) to the relay stations, near which the rocket flew at that moment. Depending on the maneuvers of the target, the trajectory of the Zour flight in this area may vary. Autopilot received data on changes in the course of the enemy, and coordinated its course in accordance with this. When approaching the target, a homing head operating in pulsed mode (in a three-centimeter frequency range) was switched on by a command from the ground.

Initially, the complex received the designation XF-99, then IM-99 and only then CIM-10A. Flight tests of anti-aircraft missiles began in the 1952 year. The complex entered service in 1957 year. Serially, rockets were manufactured by Boeing from 1957 to 1961. Total manufactured 269 missiles modification "A" and 301 modification "B". Most of the deployed missiles were equipped with nuclear warheads.



The missiles were launched from block-shaped reinforced concrete shelters located on well-protected bases, each of which was equipped with a large number of installations. There were several types of launch hangars for the Bomark air-defense system: with a sliding roof, with sliding walls, etc.



In the first variant, the block reinforced concrete shelter (length 18,3, width 12,8, height 3,9 m) for the launcher consisted of two parts: the launch compartment, in which the launcher itself was mounted, and the compartment with a number of rooms where control devices and equipment for launch control were mounted .



To bring the launcher into a firing position by hydraulic drives, the roof flaps are pulled apart (two shields of thickness 0,56 m and weight of 15 t each). The rocket boom from horizontal to vertical position. It takes up to 2 minutes for these operations, as well as for switching on the onboard equipment of the missile defense system.

The SAM base consists of an assembly and repair shop, launchers proper and a compressor station. In the assembly and repair shop, rockets are assembled, which arrive unassembled at the base in separate transport containers. In the same shop the necessary repair and maintenance of missiles.



The initial deployment plan for the system, adopted in 1955, provided for the deployment of 52 missile bases with 160 missiles on each. This was supposed to completely cover the territory of the United States from any type of air attack.



1960 deployed the entire 10 positions - 8 in the USA and 2 in Canada. Deploying launchers in Canada is associated with the desire of the US military as far as possible to move the line of interception from its borders. This was especially true in connection with the use of nuclear warheads at the Bomark missile defense system. The first squadron "Bomark" was deployed in Canada 31 December 1963 of the year. The missiles remained in the Canadian Air Force arsenal, although they were considered US property and were on alert under the supervision of American officers.


The layout of the position of the bomark air defense missile system in the USA and Canada


The bases of the Bomark air defense system were deployed at the following points.
U.S.:
- 6 th missile air defense squadron (New York) - 56 missiles "A";
- 22 th missile air defense squadron (Virginia) - 28 missiles "A" and 28 missiles "B";
- 26 th missile air defense squadron (Massachusetts) - 28 missiles "A" and 28 missiles "B";
- 30-th missile squadron of air defense (Maine) - 28 missiles "B";
- 35 Air Defense Missile Squadron (New York) - 56 B missiles;
- 38 th missile air defense squadron (Michigan) - 28 missiles "B";
- 46 th missile air defense squadron (New Jersey) - 28 missiles "A", 56 missiles "B";
- 74 Air Defense Missile Squadron (Minnesota) - 28 Missile B.

Canada:
- 446 th missile squadron (Ontario) - 28 missiles "B";
- 447 th missile squadron (Quebec) - 28 missiles "B".

In 1961, an improved version of the CIM-10В SAM was adopted. Unlike the modification “A”, the new rocket had a solid-propellant starting accelerator, improved aerodynamics and an improved homing system.


CIM-10B


The homing radar Westinghouse AN / DPN-53, operating in continuous mode, significantly increased the capabilities of the missile to hit low-flying targets. The radar installed on the CIM-10B SAM could capture a fighter-type target at a distance of 20 km. New engines RJ43-MA-11 allowed to increase the radius to 800 km, at a speed of almost 3,2 M. All the missiles of this modification were loaded only with nuclear warheads, as the US military demanded from developers the maximum probability of hitting the target.


Air test nuclear explosion over a nuclear test site in the Nevada desert at an altitude of 4,6 km.


However, in the US 60-s nuclear warheads were put on all that is possible. Thus, the atomic neutral Devi Crocket with a range of several kilometers, the unmanaged air-to-air missile AIR-2 Ginny, the air-to-air missile AIM-26 Falcon and etc. Most of the long-range MIM-14 Nike-Hercules anti-aircraft complex deployed in the US are also equipped with nuclear warheads.


The layout scheme of the "Bomark A" (a) and "Bomark B" (B): 1 - homing head; 2 - electronic equipment; 3 - combat compartment; 4 - combat compartment, electronic equipment, electric batteries; 5 - RAMJET

In appearance, modifications of missiles "A" and "B" differ little from each other. The head radio transparent body fairing ZUR, made of fiberglass, covers the homing head. The cylindrical part of the hull is mainly occupied by a steel supporting tank for liquid fuel ramjet fuel. Their starting weight is 6860 and 7272 kg; length 14,3 and 13,7 m, respectively. They have the same diameters of the hulls - 0,89 m, wingspan - 5,54 m and stabilizers 3,2 m.


Characteristics of missiles CIM-10 modifications "A" and "B"


In addition to the increased speed and range, the CIM-10В missiles have become significantly safer in operation and easier to maintain. Their solid fuel boosters did not contain toxic, corrosive and explosive components.

An improved version of the Bomark launch vehicle has significantly increased the ability to intercept targets. But it took only 10 years and this air defense system was removed from service with the US Air Force. First of all, this was due to the production and deployment of a large number of ICBMs in combat duty in the USSR, against which the Bomark air defense system was absolutely useless.

The plans to intercept Soviet long-range bombers by anti-aircraft missiles with nuclear warheads over the territory of Canada caused numerous protests among the inhabitants of the country. Canadians did not want to admire the “nuclear fireworks” over their cities for the sake of US security. Objections of Canadians against Bohark with nuclear warheads led to the resignation of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s government in 1963.

As a result, the inability to deal with ICBMs, political complications, the high cost of operation, combined with the inability to relocate the complexes, led to the rejection of its further operation, although most of the existing missiles did not serve the prescribed time.


MIM-14 Nike-Hercules


For comparison, the long-range MIM-14 Nike-Hercules ADMS adopted almost simultaneously with the CIM-10 Bomark air defense system was operated in the American armed forces until the middle of the 80's, and in the armies of the American allies until the end of the 90's. After which the Patriot MIM-104 was replaced.

Removed from combat duty of the CIM-10 SAM after dismantling the warheads and installing the remote control system using radio commands, were operated in the 4571 squadron of support until the 1979 year. They were used as targets imitating Soviet supersonic cruise missiles.

When assessing the Bomark air defense missile system, two diametrically opposite opinions are usually expressed, from: “vundervaflya” to “non-analogue”. The funny thing is that both of them are fair. The flight characteristics of the Bomarka remain unique to this day. The effective range of the modification “A” was 320 kilometers at speed 2,8 M. The modification “B” could accelerate to 3,1 M, and had a radius 780 kilometers. At the same time, the combat effectiveness of this complex was largely doubtful.

In the case of a real nuclear attack on the USA, the Bomark air defense missile system could function effectively until the SAGE interceptor’s global targeting system was alive (which is very doubtful if a full-scale nuclear war began). Partial or complete loss of performance of even one link of this system consisting of: radar guidance, computer centers, communication lines or command transmission stations - inevitably led to the impossibility of removing CIM-10 anti-aircraft missiles to the target area.



But anyway, the creation of the CIM-10 "Bomark" SAM was a major achievement of the American aviation and radio industry during the Cold War. Fortunately, this complex, which was on duty, was never used for its intended purpose. Now these once formidable anti-aircraft missiles, carrying nuclear charges, can be seen only in museums.



Based on:
http://www.designation-systems.net
http://pvo.guns.ru
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Aladin
    +9
    5 January 2015 08: 15
    By the year 52, the missiles didn’t have time, but by the age of 62 ... Forrestall jumped out the window, and Kennedy was shot.
    The problem of the traditional approach, even with an excess of funds.
    1. +7
      5 January 2015 08: 53
      Quote: Aladin
      By the 52 year, the missiles did not have time, but by the 62 they were outdated


      By 1952, they were still not needed, in the USSR then only bombers were created capable of reaching the territory of the United States. However, there were no other operational and relatively effective SAM systems in service.
      There were not many ICBMs in the USSR in 1962 yet, and they required a considerable amount of time to prepare for launch; the situation radically changed only after 7-8 years.
      1. +3
        5 January 2015 10: 03
        But to see the American experience was taken into account when creating the Soviet regional missile defense system on the A-135.
        It’s a pity that our missiles are not so long-range.
        But the control system is protected simultaneously with the covered objects!
        1. +12
          5 January 2015 12: 15
          Quote: Starover_Z
          But to see the American experience was taken into account when creating the Soviet regional missile defense system on the A-135.


          And what is structural and functional common between the Bomark projectile and the A-135 missile defense system? what When creating these two systems, different tasks were set and absolutely dissimilar technical solutions were used.
          1. +3
            8 January 2015 20: 17
            Quote: Bongo
            And what is structural and functional common between the Bomark projectile and the A-135 missile defense system?

            "progenitor" 5В61 - ABM-1 GALOSH: В-1000 experimental anti-missile defense system "System A"


            March 4, 1961 for the first time in the world the B-1000 anti-ballistic missile was intercepted by a simulator of the combat block of a real ballistic missile (R-12)
        2. +2
          6 January 2015 02: 06
          When creating the A-135, the experience of creating the American object defense missile defense system Safeguard (Spartan / Sprint) was taken into account
          1. +9
            6 January 2015 03: 07
            Quote: Bersaglieri
            When creating the A-135, the experience of creating the American object defense missile defense system Safeguard (Spartan / Sprint) was taken into account

            When creating the A-135, the experience of creating the Soviet A-35 / 35M missile defense system was taken into account.
            1. +2
              6 January 2015 19: 54
              ... which was created in response to Safeguard
              Here, at the "Rocket Base":
              http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/spartan/spartan.shtml
              http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/sprint/sprint.shtml

              The A-35 had only Spartan counterparts. The near line appeared only in the A-135 (and surpassed the "Sprint" in terms of overclocking characteristics at times)
            2. +2
              6 January 2015 20: 00
              Here is a good selection about the history of "Safeguard":
              http://bwana.ru/?p=4063

              And, in general, on the topic of missile defense is a nice blog.
        3. +4
          8 January 2015 20: 11
          Quote: Starover_Z
          But to see the American experience was taken into account when creating the Soviet regional missile defense system on the A-135.


          Actually, the experience of the A-35 (A-35M) and System-A was "taken into account", as well as the capabilities of the 221 PX-1 complex deployed by the Americans.

          The Americans quickly "blown away" with the Sentinel and its base LIM-49A Spartan, and ours "twisted"
        4. +1
          8 January 2015 20: 11
          Quote: Starover_Z
          But to see the American experience was taken into account when creating the Soviet regional missile defense system on the A-135.


          Actually, the experience of the A-35 (A-35M) and System-A was "taken into account", as well as the capabilities of the 221 PX-1 complex deployed by the Americans.

          The Americans quickly "blown away" with the Sentinel and its base LIM-49A Spartan, and ours "twisted"
        5. 0
          10 January 2015 14: 14
          And the point in range if they are not accurate
          1. +4
            10 January 2015 14: 23
            Quote: ruslan207
            And the point in range if they are not accurate

            As stated in the publication, a powerful nuclear charge guaranteed the destruction of the bomber during a miss in 1 km.
        6. The comment was deleted.
      2. Aladin
        0
        5 January 2015 12: 32
        Quote: Bongo
        in the USSR, then only bombers were created

        The USSR is generally an ally of the United States, missiles with such warheads (40 CT, 0,5 MT) are not from the USSR at all.
        1. +7
          5 January 2015 12: 46
          Quote: Aladin
          The USSR is generally an ally of the United States, missiles with such warheads (40 CT, 0,5 MT) are not from the USSR at all.

          What do you mean by that? what
          Or do you not agree that in the 1952 year in the USSR there were no long-range bombers other than Tu-4 piston?
        2. anomalocaris
          +4
          5 January 2015 13: 11
          And from whom? Who at that time was the most beloved enemy of the United States?
          1. +3
            5 January 2015 13: 15
            Quote: anomalocaris
            And from whom? Who at that time was the most beloved enemy of the United States?

            Apparently "little green men" wassat
            1. anomalocaris
              +3
              5 January 2015 13: 19
              On greens there are people in black, but this is not a reason to portray such monstrous projects. Moreover, a computer that could count all this was created only in the late 70s. Here is such a banal fact.
              1. +4
                5 January 2015 13: 28
                Quote: anomalocaris
                On greens there are people in black, but this is not a reason to portray such monstrous projects.
                laughing
                Apparently people in the Black could not cope, or the Soviet bombers were worse than the green men.
                Quote: anomalocaris
                Moreover, a computer that could count all this was created only at the end of the 70's.

                But the SAGE automated interceptor guidance system was created in 50's.
                1. anomalocaris
                  0
                  5 January 2015 13: 40
                  It is gratifying for the ancestors. Although I recall the sergeant’s behavior at a recruiting station in the Norwegian army ... It’s still nice.

                  Exactly. A separate part, but not the whole system. She has been tormented with her for more than 20 years, and this is also a saga, in comparison with which the Forsyte saga fades in its triviality.
            2. +4
              12 January 2015 18: 54
              polite people seryoga, extremely polite
            3. +5
              12 January 2015 18: 57
              damn again the Ukrainian flag, YOUR MOTHER-MODERATORS- bekfaer96-he KRYMCHANIN- remove this rag on x from my account
          2. Aladin
            +1
            5 January 2015 14: 52
            Confederates and Indians are the constant enemies of the USA ... soldier
          3. +2
            5 January 2015 18: 41
            It seems the Americans themselves were their enemy - to equip an anti-aircraft missile with a warhead on the 0,5 Mt ... An explosion would smash half a staff .. anyone.
            1. +6
              6 January 2015 02: 41
              Quote: Camel
              It seems the Americans themselves were their enemy - to equip an anti-aircraft missile with a warhead on the 0,5 Mt ... An explosion would smash half a staff .. anyone.


              As stated in the publication, Soviet bombers were planned to be intercepted over Canada, and this is clearly seen from the presented deployment scheme. In addition, the explosions would occur at significant altitudes. In the absence of contact of fissile materials with the ground, a minimum amount of radioactive fallout is formed. Although such an explosion cannot be considered "harmless" either, you certainly "bent" about the "half-state".
      3. -1
        5 January 2015 12: 54
        "In 1962, there were still not many ICBMs in the USSR" ///

        It is not so clear whether they were at all in 1962. there is
        the hypothesis that the USSR successfully bluffed for several years
        the presence of combat-ready ICBMs, but in reality they appeared
        at the end of the 60s.
        1. +6
          5 January 2015 13: 10
          Quote: voyaka uh
          It's not so clear if they were at 1962 at all.

          There were, but not many ...

          ICBM R-7 adopted at the beginning of the 1960 year. At the time of the Caribbean crisis, the Strategic Missile Forces had dozens of P-7 and P-7A missiles. Significant disadvantages of this rocket were the need for lengthy preparations for launch, the inability to keep watch on duty, high vulnerability and low accuracy.
          In 1961, the P-16 ICBM on high-boiling fuel components with an autonomous control system was adopted by the Strategic Missile Forces.
        2. anomalocaris
          +9
          5 January 2015 13: 16
          Well, if in Israel they don’t remember that in 1957 the USSR launched its first launch of a satellite, I can recall. But in principle, the same seven could carry a hydrogen charge ... By the way, at that time, in the USA there was nothing like that.
          1. +6
            5 January 2015 13: 30
            Quote: anomalocaris
            But in principle, the same seven could carry a hydrogen charge ... By the way, at that time, in the USA there was nothing like that.

            ICBM R-7 was originally designed under warhead power 3 Mt and had a range of 9500 km.
            1. anomalocaris
              +2
              5 January 2015 13: 43
              ICBM R-7 was originally designed for a specific warhead weight. And what it will be, the tenth matter. By the way, 3Mt is just a thermonuclear warhead.
              1. +5
                5 January 2015 13: 54
                Quote: anomalocaris
                ICBM R-7 was originally designed for a specific WEIGHT warhead.

                Of course, but at the same time as a missile, a warhead was designed for it.
                Quote: anomalocaris
                By the way, 3Мт is just a thermonuclear warhead.

                that is exactly what I meant.

          2. +3
            5 January 2015 15: 15
            About test launches, no one argues the test.
            But from a test run to a series on combat duty -
            the road is long. I will give an example.
            For example, in the 90s it was discovered that fuses (some
            electronic timers) on the first hydrogen warheads (60s)
            were inoperative. On tests they were mounted
            outside the volume and everything worked. The commissions were pleased.
            But on a real warhead, they were inside the volume and
            deliberately burned before its operation. those. only worked
            uranium "fuse", and there could not be a hydrogen explosion.
            They fixed it only a few years later, and the missiles were "on guard".
            1. 0
              12 January 2015 19: 09
              uncle, are you out of your mind, after the process of nuclear decay of uranium 235 elements in mass (mass and not weight for woodpeckers) of 45 kg is released, energy is released for the fusion to work - this is the beginning of a thermonuclear reaction, along the way you go dumb or skunk, for a thermonuclear reactions nadot energy, and not mythical fuses internal or external, there on x
              1. Kassandra
                0
                21 January 2015 05: 34
                these are "fuses of internal combustion" such ... wassat

                but it seemed like it was - at least they tried to arrange it.
        3. +8
          5 January 2015 15: 57
          Quote: voyaka uh
          It's not so clear if they were at 1962 at all.


          In 1962, the Strategic Missile Forces had only 30 launchers for the R-16 and R-7A ICBMs, and the United States had 203 launchers. The first three regiments with R-16 entered the database on November 1, 1961 in Nizhny Tagil and the village of Yurya, Kirov Region. AND R-7 was the world's first ICBM... It was she who launched the first satellite into orbit. For this, missiles No. 1PS and 2PS were used, which were modified taking into account the tasks being solved. The launch vehicle based on the R-7 ICBM without additional upper stages was named "Sputnik". Thus, the world's first launch vehicle was also ours. Then, on the basis of the same seven, the Gagarin launch vehicle Vostok with a third stage was created. The improved Voskhod and Soyuz launch vehicles were created (with a new more powerful third stage and a new fourth stage)
          The R-7A missile was put into service on September 12, 1960.., replacing the R-7 missile. the R-7 missile never stood directly on alert, unlike the R-7A (the latter was withdrawn from service in 1968.
          On December 31, 1959, the first missile system with R-7A ICBMs was put on combat duty (part of Colonel G. Mikheev). Before launch, the rocket was delivered from a technical position on a railway transport and installation carriage and mounted on a massive launching device. The whole prelaunch process lasted more than two hours. The missile system turned out to be bulky, vulnerable and very expensive and difficult to operate. In addition, the rocket could be in the charged state for no more than 30 days.

          So the hypothesis of the absence of combat-ready ICBMs in the early 1960s is complete nonsense. Another thing is that at that time there were very few of them and they had a low degree of combat readiness, which is why they had to deploy R-12 and R-14 BRDS in Cuba. These missiles in 1962. we had 458 and 28 on duty, respectively. In total there were 522 infantry fighting vehicles
        4. Kassandra
          -4
          5 January 2015 19: 02
          in reality, until 1956, the security of the USSR was ensured mainly by Fleet submarines with the Kyrgyz Republic and the BRDS

          and where they didn’t get (Chicago-Detroit-Colorado) there is already the Air Force from the ice airfields in the Arctic (North Arctic Ocean) by the actions of large KR and Tu-4
          but in terms of delivery it was all not guaranteed as R-7

          so no one was bluffing ... until there was nuclear weapons, they were held back by bacteriological (captured Japanese), radiological and chemical (captured German).
          bacteriological generally far superior to nuclear to thermonuclear or hrh IN.

          by the way, for that matter, the first "plane" that was built around software is BOMARK laughing
          1. +4
            6 January 2015 02: 46
            Quote: Kassandra
            bacteriological generally far superior to nuclear to thermonuclear or hrh IN.

            How's that? No. What are the parameters? What biological agents were planned to be used in warhead ICBMs?
            1. Kassandra
              0
              6 January 2015 13: 21
              in terms of mortality, ease of delivery, cheapness, coverage and invisibility of infection. that is, for almost all.
              why is it necessary in the ICBM
              1. anomalocaris
                +2
                6 January 2015 13: 45
                Cassander, I’m not going to use you as a cassander now (they say she was quite a normal virgin). Bacteriological WEAPONS are exactly that weapon, not a worldwide fucker. The limitation on the duration of action, virulence and mortality will be somehow embedded in the virus.
                But ICBMs as a means of delivery are absolutely optional, even contraindicated.
                1. Kassandra
                  -1
                  6 January 2015 14: 11
                  the Greeks did not think so for the time being ... use yourself better.
                  ICBM incidentally is not contraindicated
                  they are 99,7% inherent. plague foci and anthrax do you know what it is?
                  1. Kir
                    +6
                    7 January 2015 03: 24
                    Not interfering in my own:
                    1 The use of anthrax with all its pathogenicity as a weapon is not very due to the nature of the infection
                    2 The term of the "safety" of this rubbish according to some sources is almost up to 500 years
                    Well, after all this, what is the use of this ulcer, but having fun with decontamination after infection is still a pleasure.
                    1. Kassandra
                      -1
                      7 January 2015 03: 30
                      Well, why did it only basically do it? ... very much.
                      1. Kir
                        +3
                        7 January 2015 03: 57
                        medportal.ru to help you, it is clearly indicated that it is mainly due to the pulmonary form of the disease, and this is less than 5% of the infection.
                      2. Kassandra
                        0
                        7 January 2015 04: 04
                        this is when from cows in everyday life ...
                      3. Kir
                        +2
                        7 January 2015 04: 31
                        Read carefully
                      4. Kassandra
                        -1
                        7 January 2015 12: 58
                        think carefully ... (on the basis of which the medical portal writes its data).
                      5. Kassandra
                        0
                        7 January 2015 13: 16
                        PS. he writes them on the basis of the consequences of eliminating ordinary epizootics.
                        bulk skin form of a military strain of more than 60% by the way ...
                      6. Kir
                        +2
                        8 January 2015 02: 20
                        Well, you obviously didn’t go to this segment, otherwise you wouldn’t write.
                      7. Kassandra
                        0
                        8 January 2015 11: 30
                        stopped by, why. and many more where I went ...
                        Do not confuse me with Bongo?
                      8. +4
                        8 January 2015 11: 53
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        stopped by, why. and many more where I went ... don’t you confuse me with Bongo?

                        Can I be confused with someone? laughing
                      9. Kassandra
                        0
                        8 January 2015 12: 17
                        Well, here you are alone arguing with him that anthrax is not serious ...
                      10. +2
                        8 January 2015 12: 22
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Well, here you are alone arguing with him that anthrax is not serious ...

                        anthrax - this is serious, but not as a weapon capable of restraining aggression ... and we did not argue. Everyone except you agreed.
                      11. Kassandra
                        0
                        8 January 2015 12: 39
                        then all of you to the medical portal - wherever but sent me,
                        look in the article on it for the "causative agent" section, third paragraph.
                      12. +1
                        12 January 2015 19: 26
                        Kasia- for a start-BECOME-and read the article
                      13. +2
                        12 January 2015 19: 24
                        is it you more carefully be- the theme of the missile defense of the 50s, you or you specifically need to poke your nose?
                      14. Kassandra
                        0
                        21 January 2015 05: 36
                        do not pierce yourself with your sharp nose, Pinocchio ... what other missiles?
              2. +5
                7 January 2015 07: 20
                Quote: Kassandra
                in terms of mortality, ease of delivery, cheapness, coverage and invisibility of infection. that is, for almost all.

                So you want to say that, say, an 3 bomb bomb equipped with infectious microorganisms will have a greater damaging effect than a thermonuclear charge of the same weight? No. By the beginning of the 50's, quite effective antibiotics appeared, which already at that time made it possible to deal with most lethal infections. In addition, do not discount the effectiveness of sanitary and epidemiological measures.

                Quote: Kassandra
                why is it necessary in the ICBM


                And there were other carriers that were very likely to reach
                US territory? what
                Biological agents are not very promising as a "weapon of retaliation" and are absolutely ineffective on the battlefield. Microorganisms are very sensitive to extreme temperature factors and weather conditions and have a limited shelf life. Biological weapons can be relatively effective as a means of "ethnic cleansing" in underdeveloped countries and as a diversionary weapon, but nothing more.
                1. Kir
                  +4
                  7 January 2015 09: 32
                  Microorganisms are very sensitive to extreme temperature factors and weather conditions and are limited in shelf life.
                  1) Not everyone has such a bad temperature
                  Microorganisms were found in black smokers, and anthrax spores in a certain condition can withstand boiling
                  2) In terms of timing, the same ulcer is capable of maintaining activity for more than one century (I already indicated above), then it was on the territory of the former USSR, and specifically during the construction of the Kiev metro, they reached a layer much over hundreds of years, and so the organisms that were in this the layer on the "conservation" of steel "is" steel structures, but they were overcome, but it was a fact.
                  3) The high virulence of part of the pathogenic microorganisms, the Siberian apparent outsider penicillin and still suppresses it.
                  With regards to the use as a selective weapon aimed at certain ethnic groups, this is exactly what many world "democratizers" are striving for. But there is a Huge Minus - it is difficult to completely control the spread, and the territory itself must then be sanitized, coupled with the quarantine of the border areas, it is enough to recall the 2000 outbreak of chickenpox in Moscow (he himself got under the "distribution"), and the explanation from the flow of migrants from the Asian and Caucasian republics ...
                  1. +5
                    7 January 2015 09: 49
                    Quote: Kir
                    Not everyone has such a bad temperature

                    Which of the highly pathogenic fatal infections with a high mortality rate, for which there are no drugs?

                    Anyway, most of what the respected writes about
                    Kassandra
                    -is mostly fantastic scenarios. And "biological weapons" can in no way be considered as an alternative to nuclear weapons as a "deterrent."
                    1. Kir
                      +1
                      7 January 2015 10: 40
                      Ebola treatment is symptomatic, at least at the moment there are no specific drugs (depending on the strain, mortality varies to 90 with more than 100)
                      Regarding Cassandra, it’s so right if you take Wik as a source of knowledge and the like, then yes. By containment, well, the purest (neutron) was banned, because we have had obvious success in this segment.
                      1. +4
                        7 January 2015 11: 04
                        Quote: Kir
                        Ebola treatment is symptomatic, at least at the moment there are no specific drugs (depending on the strain, mortality varies to 90 with more than 100)


                        Ebola hemorrhagic fever virus is transmitted by direct contact with blood, secretions, other fluids and organs of an infected person, airborne virus transmission does not occur. At temperatures above 60 degrees, the virus dies quickly, an aqueous solution of soap or alcohol-containing liquids easily destroy the shell of this virus. Those. it is not suitable for warhead equipment.
                    2. Kassandra
                      0
                      7 January 2015 14: 59
                      you plague and anthrax not a decree? such a "flu" as the Spanish flu?

                      Order 731 is fantastic, right? ... you don’t have to make idiots out of people here - the USA and Co. are not punishable never were and never will be.

                      bacteriological weapons are now recognized as more dangerous than nuclear ones. including because of the relative simplicity of its manufacture and delivery.
                      1. anomalocaris
                        +3
                        9 January 2015 10: 31
                        Of course, you have not heard about antibiotics ...
                      2. Kassandra
                        -1
                        9 January 2015 13: 14
                        Well, and how successfully is the same plague treated with antibiotics?
                        military anthrax is "treated" in about the same way ...

                        Are you completely "sick"? am
                      3. anomalocaris
                        +3
                        10 January 2015 13: 13
                        It is treated. And quite successfully. Pokrovskaya in the mid-30s created a highly effective vaccine, and in the postwar years, plague, even in the last stages, was quite successfully treated with streptomycin.
                        So the effectiveness of biological weapons is greatly exaggerated by Hollywood, and therefore, I urge you to limit viewing of the zombie creature (at the same time it will save you from other twists in your brain).
                      4. Kassandra
                        0
                        20 January 2015 17: 20
                        read please at https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague
                        section: "Plague as a biological weapon",
                        dear comrade.
                2. Kassandra
                  -3
                  7 January 2015 14: 07
                  why immediately a bomb and weighing 3 tons? the microbe somehow weighs less bully
                  Anthrax and now kills 99,7% in the intensive care unit. sad

                  were of course, but not so guaranteed. here, on this page, it was already written - submarines and bombers from ice airfields.

                  I "like" your unfounded statements ... the precautions for dealing with anthrax and plague outbreaks look again ...
                  1. anomalocaris
                    +3
                    10 January 2015 13: 17
                    Anthrax and now kills 99,7% in the intensive care unit.

                    A link to the source of information. And then I searched, but I never met such nonsense.
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      20 January 2015 17: 23
                      you yourself will find ... and leave your nonsense to yourself.
                    2. Kassandra
                      0
                      20 January 2015 17: 24
                      it means they were looking in the wrong test tube.

                      you yourself will find ... and leave your nonsense to yourself.
        5. -2
          5 January 2015 23: 57
          that the USSR successfully bluffed for several years
          the availability of combat-ready ICBMs,


          There is approximately the same hypothesis about the availability of ready-made nuclear weapons in the United States, such as after Hiroshima and Nagasaki they had no more charges, the detonated bombs were captured, and the American ones actually appeared after 1,5-2 years, which explains only the verbal threat to use them against the USSR at that time.
          1. Kassandra
            0
            6 January 2015 01: 32
            they didn’t have more charges left, and others could only be ready in a few months.
            Little Boy was a trophy ...
            verbal threat is explained by the fact that in response to them the USSR would use the captured bacteriological captured in Detachment 731
            By the way, when they captured him, they saved up to 25% of the US population ...
            1. +4
              6 January 2015 02: 51
              Quote: Kassandra
              The USSR would use the captured bacteriological captured in the 731 Squad


              Please share the source ...
              1. Kassandra
                -2
                6 January 2015 13: 35
                wikipedia and google: "Unit 731",
                x / f "Through the Gobi and Khingan", filmed based on real events.
                the entire Manchurian operation was in fact a disarmament of Japan from the BO,
                if the USSR had to "take back its own" at the end of the war, the battles would only take place on Sakhalin and the Kuriles. and then in Japan itself.
                This also explains the forced regime of the SA attack on a breakthrough to the landing holding Japanese stores with WMD.
                the test tubes and stockpiles of ready-made bombs were real, unlike the test tube of which one of them was shaking badly at the UN Security Council on Iraq, even having undressed himself in the OZK (what about the others) ...
                1. anomalocaris
                  +3
                  6 January 2015 14: 02
                  Mdya ...
                  And you did not try to be treated?
                  1. Kassandra
                    -2
                    6 January 2015 14: 15
                    you try ... yet.

                    again gnaws that "cowboy invulnerability" 1940-1950s. is this not true, and in fact it was rather the other way around?
                    1. Kir
                      +1
                      7 January 2015 03: 29
                      wiki as a source of knowledge is generally something else, this is one thing another but what is the secrecy label on all this? in the aggregate, it will come out that what they give us as the truth is at least half-truth, if not to say disinformation, or banal lies from the series "from reliable sources."
                      1. Kassandra
                        0
                        7 January 2015 03: 34
                        if they write about Sputnik 1957, then it's true,
                        and if about Detachment 731 and 1945, then no?
                      2. Kir
                        +4
                        7 January 2015 03: 45
                        Well, if you also read that in world aviation there are only two geniuses Henkel and Rutan, then doubts about the adequacy of information and assessments clearly arise, then note that from Ours they recognize only what is really impossible to compare with their "inventions", in all the rest either let's read that we were supposedly the first, as in the case of the screen effect, or being pushed into the background, and by the way, by the same authorship of the helicopter, the "friends" are actively promoting the version with Bel, then he himself came across that documentary filmmaking in Japan from the 2nd world is not in translation, but in the censored version of the Air Force and others.
                      3. Kassandra
                        0
                        7 January 2015 03: 51
                        here the BBC does not focus on this ...
                      4. Kir
                        +3
                        7 January 2015 04: 35
                        gave the example of the BBC not as a source on the problem, but as an example of "completeness and impartiality" of information.
                      5. Kassandra
                        0
                        7 January 2015 13: 05
                        they (media) are almost all like that ... in front of me only one of the US NBC protection team apologized and said "Thank you".

                        military Filippins usually generally write in comments that Soviet commandos capture Japanese warehouses with weapons of mass destruction in Manchuria (if there were any at all) by no means because there are only English commandos. sad
                2. +4
                  7 January 2015 08: 39
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  wikipedia and google: "Detachment 731", x / f "Through the Gobi and Khingan", filmed based on real events.

                  Extremely reliable sources of information ...
                  1. Kassandra
                    0
                    7 January 2015 14: 28
                    is not it?

                    again cowboy "unpunished" prowess does not give rest? in fact, by disarming Japan from baku, their asses were first saved then ...
                  2. +3
                    12 January 2015 19: 30
                    Seryoga, stop the dialogue with this misunderstanding, or do you want to yell?
                    1. +1
                      14 January 2015 06: 35
                      Quote: bekfaer96
                      Seryoga, stop the dialogue with this misunderstanding, or do you want to yell?


                      I’m Volodya for fun, sometimes it’s funny to find out what kind of garbage is accumulating in people's heads laughing.
                      1. Kassandra
                        0
                        21 January 2015 05: 38
                        Well, where did you see specifically and which one? when did you wash your last? and then the warlocks alone ...

                        maybe the word "ice airfield" is never googled? (which were needed to work on the US Tu-4, covered by the La-11)

                        or is anthrax with plague still worse than a cold?

                        or gopher, if any, must be visible?
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihZyUBaG_8Y
                    2. Kassandra
                      0
                      21 January 2015 05: 38
                      along the way you want ...
            2. +6
              6 January 2015 21: 13
              Quote: Kassandra
              Little Boy was a trophy ...

              Well, why do these tales ... Little Boy (Eng. Little Boy) - the code name for the atomic (uranium) bomb, developed as part of the Manhattan project. The first successfully detonated uranium bomb and the first ever atomic bomb, which was used as a weapon and was dropped by the United States on August 6, 1945 on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.
              1. Kassandra
                -2
                6 January 2015 22: 01
                Yes, that's right, unlike the "Fat Man" it was not even tested, because it was tested by the Germans earlier, on March 7, 1945.

                and U-234 loaded with uranium in the harbor of New York certainly did not go ...
                1. +8
                  7 January 2015 07: 03
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  Yes, that's right, unlike the "Fat Man" it was not even tested, because it was tested by the Germans earlier, on March 7, 1945.

                  This was not !!! Tales of REN TV and the yellow press!
                  1. Kassandra
                    -3
                    7 January 2015 13: 58
                    and that so immediately "was not"? ... and U-234 did not enter New York Harbor, did it? bully

                    Is it nothing that Einstein saw all the blueprints and formulas of the atomic bomb at the University of Berlin, after which he fled to the USA and wrote a letter there to the American president that the Germans were developing this weapon?

                    and they had uranium like dirt ... and in general what is so complicated about the "gun assembly", that is, in the first atomic bomb?
                    1. Kir
                      +3
                      8 January 2015 02: 44
                      Please in more detail about Einstein and the atomic bomb, but for how long I remember the old man did not believe in the possibility of creating it, then even in the source you like to refer to, Wikipedia indicates that he moved to SGA in 1933, then there is such a historically reliable fact, that eminent Jews from Nazi Germany were redeemed, as an example of this ransom of Freud, there is a suspicion that something similar happened here to be.
                      1. Kassandra
                        0
                        8 January 2015 11: 37
                        he worked as a laboratory assistant at the University of Berlin

                        let's better why Curie needed to process tons of radioactive material in the shed to "confirm his priority" and be irradiated at the same time, although a German also opened it all before them on the other side of the barricades.
                      2. Kir
                        +3
                        8 January 2015 15: 09
                        And let’s generally analyze the entire list of those involved in the atomic business in detail, how do you like such a proposal? With regards to the fact that German scientists are credited with many discoveries that later received another "citizenship", well, in addition to real ones, there were also mystics to hell, some research "ancestral heritage" is worth what, just note that they say about the German trace, but something about Russian Is that a little audible ?, maybe it's worth more to write and talk about Ours.
                        With regards to portals on biomedical disciplines, it is certainly more correct to watch data such as "chernogolovka" and others, the only question is, what about the secrecy stamp?
                      3. Kassandra
                        0
                        8 January 2015 16: 46
                        come on, who is really against ... but what is so complicated in the "gun assembly"?

                        the medical portal is not a black-headed, there is no chipboard ... they themselves sent there.
                      4. Kir
                        +1
                        9 January 2015 00: 03
                        I just pointed out that as sources it is necessary to rely on specialized resources, and not on a free encyclopedia, where everyone can place his work.
                        Then and for what is here to discuss the entire payroll.
                      5. Kassandra
                        0
                        9 January 2015 00: 23
                        and the medical portal is the ultimate truth?
                        what exactly was wrong on the wiki on the issues raised?
                      6. Kir
                        +3
                        9 January 2015 03: 13
                        I don’t know about you, but I personally try to turn to professionally censored material whenever possible. With regards to the medical portal, this is the first thing that was found.
                      7. Kassandra
                        0
                        9 January 2015 03: 31
                        With regards to what is wrong with the "Japanese Siberian"? sad
                        or something daunting in the "gun assembly"?
                      8. Kir
                        +2
                        9 January 2015 03: 46
                        Are you about the game gun assembly or what? or there is something else with this name, I’ll immediately make a reservation about the games when I was not interested, and if there is any interest, then this is from the field of 3D (rendering, etc.). I’ve already indicated on free, well, plus who created it and where it is registered, and by the way, minke whales said somewhere that at least in terms of treatment (self-treatment), wikis should not be trusted, although given that medicine is a very profitable business there, maybe the commercial factor prevails.

                        And let’s do it, for the part that is not related to the article we’ll finish.
                      9. Kassandra
                        0
                        9 January 2015 03: 55
                        about the YABCh scheme "Kid", by the way it has to do with the article ...
          2. anomalocaris
            +4
            7 January 2015 07: 26
            This is not a hypothesis. This is a fact related to the features of the technological cycle of manufacturing nuclear weapons. By the end of 1945, Americans were able to actually produce fissile material by 6–7 charges. They just couldn’t make more. Yes, and they themselves recognized this. Indeed, they could start mass production only from the year 48-49, when the reactors began to produce plutonium in more or less decent quantities.
            1. Kassandra
              0
              7 January 2015 14: 11
              that is, 3-4 more in fact, and by March 1946. this is taking into account uranium bombs. by October-November 1946 about 15 charges.
              1. anomalocaris
                +4
                7 January 2015 15: 02
                No. 3 charges exploded (one in trials, two - Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Total in the dry residue of 4 charges. For 1946, 2 more charges were collected.
                Everything is very simple. Enriching uranium to the weapons level (which is over 98% of the 235 isotope) is a very dreary task. That electrodiffusion method, that the centrifuge on each cycle gives an enrichment of about 7%. Now we consider: the richest ores, as far as I remember, have a content of about 65%, on average, 30-40%, of all this uranium, only 0.7% U235. To create a nuclear bomb requires about 20 kg of uranium. Therefore, it is required to dig 70-80 tons of uranium ore (actually more, since the enrichment process has not 100% efficiency, and the ore has not only uranium). Now for enrichment - it is necessary to increase the concentration from 0.7% to 98%, that is, 140 times. Accordingly, it must be passed through the processing plant at least 2000 times. Here is such arithmetic. So they quickly tied up with uranium bombs, because it is very expensive, long, and there is too much waste. That is why in the United States these same 15 charges appeared only by 1948.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  7 January 2015 16: 01
                  they all that they had launched was only 3 charges = 0 in the balance.

                  by the end of 1946 they should have had 15 more warheads

                  The cascade of centrifuges (this is the German method) enriches 100 times easier than the thermal diffusion method.

                  with uranium bombs not tied. its drawback is that it drops dramatically in power after 15 years. just then the thermonuclear weapon went already.

                  with plutonium bombs or fuses, much more hemorrhoids. it is generally an artificial element.
                  1. anomalocaris
                    +3
                    9 January 2015 10: 37
                    Where did the information come from?
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      9 January 2015 13: 17
                      about the fact that plutonium is an artificial element, and it is obtained in reactors?
                      1. anomalocaris
                        +3
                        10 January 2015 13: 22
                        Cassander, again, jump off the topic?
                        You will be surprised, but in addition to hydrogen, ALL elements in the universe are obtained by nuclear fission reactions and thermonuclear fusion reactions. bully
                      2. +4
                        10 January 2015 13: 39
                        Quote: anomalocaris
                        Cassander, again, jump off the topic?
                        You will be surprised, but in addition to hydrogen, ALL elements in the universe are obtained by nuclear fission reactions and thermonuclear fusion reactions.


                        Apparently in "Cassander" it is in the order of things, a person lives in his own virtual world. He was offered an alternative, but he clearly did not understand the hint.
                      3. anomalocaris
                        +3
                        10 January 2015 20: 05
                        Hmm ... I also sometimes do not mind reading about what could have happened if ... request This, in general, is not a bad brain training. Here are just a few high-quality alternatives (without poperev).
                      4. Kassandra
                        0
                        20 January 2015 17: 27
                        what was wrong? only specifically ...
                      5. Kassandra
                        0
                        20 January 2015 17: 26
                        strange, it’s still a long way to spring ... maybe a thaw?
        6. MMX
          +3
          6 January 2015 10: 57
          Uh-huh, apparently all these air defense systems were created against flying saucers ... How can we not recall the radio play "War of the Worlds" based on H. Wells, which made a lot of noise. So they made SAM systems against the Martians in order to calm the people down. And the USSR is so, all sorts of bears, balalaikas, earflaps, etc.
        7. +3
          6 January 2015 14: 13
          Well, of course, backward scoops could not create ICBMs. And did you hear about Yuri Gagarin? He flew into space on a civilian version of the R-7 ICBMs.
          All these "hypotheses" are propagandists' bullshit
      4. Kassandra
        -2
        5 January 2015 18: 46
        got out one way from ice airfields. boats were still flying, and many other miscellaneous things. that's why SAGE for NORAD was created even before BOMARC ...

        The USSR had its own similar system, only in it the unmanned interceptor was barrage and returned. just in case, a pilot seat was provided in it.
        1. anomalocaris
          +4
          6 January 2015 14: 05
          The USSR had its own similar system, only in it the unmanned interceptor was barrage and returned. just in case, a pilot seat was provided in it.

          Please provide the designation of this complex.
          1. Kassandra
            -3
            6 January 2015 14: 18
            contact the Museum of the Air Force or the Air Force, they will show you there ...
            in this article it is also written that Bomark was first tried to be armed with V-V rockets and he would have to reusable, but the Americans then overpowered this task.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Kassandra
                -4
                6 January 2015 16: 24
                Was it written in this article that Bomark was supposed to be the same in the beginning? or didn’t you come to read it but popped up in the comments?

                write on your ass ... about how they use you I’m afraid to ask.
        2. +4
          7 January 2015 06: 15
          Quote: Kassandra
          got out one way from ice airfields. boats were still flying, and many other miscellaneous things. that's why SAGE for NORAD was created even before BOMARC ...

          The USSR had its own similar system, only in it the unmanned interceptor was barrage and returned. just in case, a pilot seat was provided in it.


          Read, a good alternative, I'm sure you will like it.

          http://alternathistory.org.ua/karibskii-armageddon-chast-i
          1. Kassandra
            0
            7 January 2015 13: 46
            the point is that the above was NOT an alternative ...
            and in the alternative, the word "ice airfield" never occurs. just something about the Tu-16, and not the fact that about the ice jump when hitting the Greenland AFB Thule 1 time

            The war plans were real and these ice airfields on the northern polar cap were constantly supported by Soviet peaceful polar research expeditions, with completely peaceful Soviet bulldozers, in working condition, especially until the Myasischevsky jet vehicles with a longer range than the Tu-4 piston appeared (to export them should have the same piston La-9 and La-11).

            And by the way, the pilots "worried about themselves" only during the raid on Colorado, because there was not enough radius to go to internment in Mexico, as well as to hide in the Canadian taiga.
            for the same reason, the SAC Control Center was not located anywhere but in the state of Colorado.
  2. +8
    5 January 2015 08: 22
    A very interesting sample of weapons of a potential enemy of the Cold War
    1. anomalocaris
      +6
      5 January 2015 13: 49
      What fright is the potential? It’s quite real, alas.
    2. +5
      6 January 2015 13: 40
      A very interesting sample of weapons


      Yes, the 50s are generally interesting in aviation. There are a lot of new products - from pulsating, rocket engines, turbojet engines to once-through engines. And nobody really knew what would happen. And then he was in the USA and we even have such a monster
      direct-flow with a nuclear reactor. The heating of the working fluid (air) is not by burning fuel, but by passing it through the active zone of a small nuclear reactor. The thrust was better than the chemical rockets of the time. And this is the 55th year. (In the picture)
      1. Kir
        +4
        7 January 2015 03: 35
        Yeah, it was very well irradiated during the flight, and given that in one of the options it was planned to put this taxiway on the winged low-flying one!
  3. +1
    5 January 2015 10: 39
    Why is Gopnik defensive complexes? Does he have enough strike weapons? Moreover, not a single such complex has ruled out a retaliatory strike. And it is unlikely when such happiness for the gopnik comes.
    1. anomalocaris
      0
      5 January 2015 13: 22
      This is HOPE! That is, an unreasonable expectation of a freebie ... On the principle of a sudden blow.
    2. 0
      5 January 2015 13: 36
      And the gopnik wants to live the same, even if he is the most gopasty. He would have it so that he could show his coolness and he himself would not be shocked. Moreover, the USSR then had its own Nikita Sergeevich (the same gopot in essence) - and if he had not bluffed, and if he had taken and began to show "Kuzka's mother"? Fuck knows what the world would be like today, if there ever was.
  4. +4
    5 January 2015 13: 54
    52 missile bases of 160 missiles each with nuclear warheads! Yes, gigantomania suffered not only the USSR.
  5. +4
    5 January 2015 14: 11
    But this CIM-10 Bomark missile with a launch range of 800 km, equipped with a powerful thermonuclear warhead using a mobile launch and other guidance systems, could become a good ground-based cruise missile.
    1. +3
      5 January 2015 14: 45
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      But this CIM-10 Bomark missile with a launch range of 800 km, equipped with a powerful thermonuclear warhead using a mobile launch and other guidance systems, could become a good ground-based cruise missile.


      Maybe yes. Almost simultaneously with the "Bomark", the USSR adopted the ground-based KR FKR-1 (KS-7). Which was created on the basis of the KS-1 anti-ship missile system and repeated the MiG-15 in its layout. These missiles with nuclear warheads were on alert in Cuba and the GDR. In terms of range and flight speed, the FKR-1 was significantly inferior to the Bomark.

      The performance characteristics of the cruise missile FCR-1
      Starting weight - 3,6 t
      Marching flight speed - 900 km / h
      Flight altitude - 600-1200 m
      Flight range - 125 km
      Circular Probable Deviation (CVR) - 500 m.
      1. 0
        5 January 2015 14: 57
        It looks like the straight-line amer technology is now lost. Or am I wrong?
      2. Kassandra
        0
        5 January 2015 19: 09
        all the older Nikes that could carry the special ammunition had a "fire translator" for work on the ground ...
        this is one of the reasons why they have not been supplied to BV for a long time.
        1. +3
          6 January 2015 03: 01
          Quote: Kassandra
          all the older Nikes that could carry special ammunition had a "fire translator" for work on the ground ... this is one of the reasons why they were not supplied to the BV for a long time.

          Why would they "not have been supplied for a long time," most of the "Nike-Hercules" on duty in the United States were just with nuclear warheads. In Europe, however, anti-aircraft missiles with nuclear warheads were much smaller.

          American anti-aircraft missile system MIM-14 "Nike-Hercules"
          http://topwar.ru/41764-amerikanskiy-zenitno-raketnyy-kompleks-mim-14-nayk-gerkul
          es.html
          1. Kassandra
            0
            6 January 2015 13: 39
            They didn’t ship to the Middle East for a long time ...
            1. anomalocaris
              +2
              6 January 2015 16: 03
              Yeah. There only missile defense systems with special warheads were missing ...
              1. Kassandra
                0
                6 January 2015 16: 27
                Special warheads have long been theirs ... their means of delivery were not enough.
            2. +2
              7 January 2015 08: 52
              Quote: Kassandra
              They didn’t ship to the Middle East for a long time ...

              And to which Middle Eastern countries were Nike delivered at all?
              1. Kassandra
                0
                7 January 2015 14: 46
                to israel ...
                1. +3
                  8 January 2015 05: 30
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  to israel ..

                  Really? No. however, I confess ... I knew in advance that you would include the state of Israel in the number of countries where Nike-Hercules was in service. This is not the case, some time ago I was preparing a publication on MIM-14 Nike-Hercules and have a good knowledge of information on this issue. In order not to enter into a long debate, this list is from the source to which you usually refer. With all due respect to you, I have to note that you quite often operate on unverified and unreliable facts.
                  1. Kassandra
                    0
                    8 January 2015 11: 42
                    "Triumph of Flying Foxes" look ...
                    1. +1
                      8 January 2015 11: 48
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      "Triumph of Flying Foxes" look ...


                      If at the beginning of the 70s the MiG-25R flew from Egyptian airfields, then I report: At that time, Israel had only the Hawk air defense system - in terms of its characteristics, this is an analogue of our C-125. Or can you not agree that you were wrong?
                      1. Kassandra
                        0
                        8 January 2015 12: 13
                        no, I can’t ... one mine battery was after the Syrian raids in 1977.
                      2. +3
                        8 January 2015 12: 16
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        no, I can’t ... one mine battery was after the Syrian raids in 1977.

                        To launch the Nike-Hercules SAM - NEVER mine-type PUs were not used.
                      3. Kassandra
                        0
                        8 January 2015 12: 29
                        What are the fundamental limitations to this?

                        they did not even start from them.
                        it’s in the USA that it is necessary to show the goods in person ... and in a small country the rain of nails will fly from Scud or an ordinary gun, and there is no position ...
                      4. +3
                        8 January 2015 12: 40
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        What are the fundamental limitations to this?

                        they did not even start from them.


                        There are a lot of restrictions ... I will not list them all ... such silos DID NOT HAVE
                        If you want to YOU taken seriously - please write only what really took place to be.
                      5. Kassandra
                        0
                        8 January 2015 12: 52
                        there are no restrictions ... you probably have never been in the closed-type S-125 air defense positional area.
                      6. +2
                        8 January 2015 12: 55
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        there are no restrictions ... you probably have never been in the closed-type S-125 air defense positional area.

                        Long-range air defense systems in transport and launch containers appeared only in the middle of the 70's.

                        I served for several years in the 11th Air Defense Army in the Far East, but I have never heard of the S-125 "closed type" air defense system. Share a photo?
                      7. Kassandra
                        -2
                        8 January 2015 13: 02
                        No, I will not share ... transport and launch containers have nothing to do with it.
                      8. +2
                        8 January 2015 13: 06
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        no, I will not share.

                        Apparently because this was not the case in nature ...
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        transport and launch containers have nothing to do with it

                        Alas, what has it to do with ... the mechanism of vertical launch from silos and TPKs is largely similar.
                      9. Kassandra
                        -2
                        8 January 2015 15: 00
                        in nature this was even among the Arabs.

                        PU rose from shelter before launch
                      10. +4
                        8 January 2015 16: 13
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        in nature, this was even among the Arabs. PU rose from shelter before launch

                        What type of air defense system? Where? Who? At least hint ...
                        Although you are unlikely to be able to do this, all the positions of the air defense systems of the past or present have long been known. There are hundreds of such pictures in my personal collection.

                        S-300PMU air defense positions in a suburb of Beijing

                        On the second: S-75 air defense missile systems in Egypt
                      11. Kassandra
                        -3
                        8 January 2015 16: 39
                        yes, any ... and these photos can not be false? bully

                        the Chinese are already hiding underground ICBMs, and here you are ...
                      12. +2
                        8 January 2015 16: 48
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        yes, any ... and these photos can not be false? the Chinese are hiding underground ICBMs and you are here ...

                        This is a photo of real air defense systems. In general, I have the impression that you don’t make a big difference between mobile ICBMs and medium- and long-range air defense systems.
                        And where do you lower the radar and missile guidance stations with their antennas, which are much more vulnerable to launchers, also underground?
                      13. Kassandra
                        -2
                        8 January 2015 16: 54
                        how do you know what is real? laughing


                        yes, that’s how it is done in most cases ...

                        Antenna facilities, by the way, are not as vulnerable as launchers for cluster munitions, and the ODAB barrel can be hit by an anti-aircraft gun on approach. cluster munition, when it is already revealed - no.
                      14. +4
                        8 January 2015 16: 59
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        how do you know what is real?

                        I specially presented you pictures fixed-fortified positions Yes
                        Well, however, if for you this is not an argument ...
                        By the way, did you jump off the topic, where and in which countries were the underground missile launchers used? And please remember about the type, I'm extremely intrigued what
                      15. Kassandra
                        -3
                        8 January 2015 20: 23
                        Well, why? But about the work of missile missions from ambushes, when do you know what?

                        where and when was the topic jumped off?
                      16. anomalocaris
                        +2
                        9 January 2015 10: 43
                        You have a constant jump from the topic.
                      17. Kassandra
                        0
                        9 January 2015 13: 21
                        maybe vice versa in someone else?
                      18. +2
                        9 January 2015 13: 57
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Well, why? But about the work of missile missions from ambushes, when do you know what?

                        I know, but not in peacetime and not from the concrete positions in which the division is deployed, carrying a database for many years. And I also know about service points and refueling missiles, barracks, workshops, long-range radar detection meter range, etc.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        where and when was the topic jumped off?

                        Please, tell us more about the specific type of "underground-based" air defense system, as well as where and when was it in service? As an "old air defense officer, I'm terribly interested. hi
                      19. Kassandra
                        0
                        9 January 2015 14: 20
                        Well, in peacetime, KAL007 flew to reveal a lot of this.
                        everything is also underground ... otherwise you get tired of catching windows between satellites.

                        Fenders just need to know all this.

                        It has already been written - at least the S-125, in Iraq, for example.
                      20. +3
                        9 January 2015 14: 50
                        quote = Kassandra] Well, in peacetime, KAL007 flew to open a lot of this. The supply is also underground ... otherwise you get tired of catching windows between satellites. [/ Quote]
                        This is not about that ... In addition, to establish locations for air defense systems and radar systems - radio reconnaissance is much more effective.
                        [quote = Kassandra] has already been written - at least C-125, in Iraq for example. [/ quote]
                        Of course I would like to see the photo (well, please) or to know the area of ​​deployment.
                        However, with all the desire to do this, you cannot. There were no "underground" air defense systems there, otherwise the Americans who occupied this country would have trumpeted the whole world about it.
                      21. Kassandra
                        0
                        9 January 2015 15: 18
                        why not about that - KAL007 flew for that purpose to use them

                        why should they blow the whole world about it?
                        so that the Taiwanese or Swiss, where most of them are the only ones, chuckle?

                        I won’t be able to, and I won’t begin to do so.
                        Are you definitely a PUSHNIK?
                        if - yes, then tady - oh ... start your googling with "hiding type" or "hiding type battery".
                      22. +2
                        9 January 2015 15: 37
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        if - yes, then tady - oh ... start your googling with "hiding type" or "hiding type battery".

                        I don’t need to "google" anything ... you could not provide coordinates or a photo, what can I say?

                        I am not bad enough with air defense systems, including those from Middle Eastern countries. Here, for example, the destroyed Libyan C-75. Position after and before airstrike.

                      23. Kassandra
                        -1
                        9 January 2015 17: 11
                        closed PU Nike even in the states were, because next to public roads
                        one is still in conservation under protection because there was an "exposed core" accident there ...

                        if you don’t know how to think logically - put in a thought experiment and fill up with rubble or sand the positions of the launch blocks in your pictures in the article on the roof that closes so that it is at least level with the ground.

                        What kind of kindergarten in general? Are you alright? or learning to troll?
                        you love pictures - start with this

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Disappearing_Gun_Taiaroa_Head.jpg

                        what prevents to hide SAMs in the same way?

                        What do you want from me at all? the same two photos as yours, only on which the PU is not visible? bully
                      24. +2
                        10 January 2015 13: 15
                        It is impossible to imagine photos of what is not really, but only in your sore imagination ...
                        I shouldn't poke and be rude to a respected person, otherwise you will end up on the "black list", better learn to answer for your words. Although, in any case, I am grateful to you for your comments on the article, of which I am the author. Was funny...
                      25. Kassandra
                        0
                        20 January 2015 17: 09
                        it’s possible, only you can’t see anything there, because it’s disguised, however.
                      26. Kassandra
                        0
                        9 January 2015 22: 00
                        PS. did you get to know them when they destroyed something? what is your interesting selection of photos ...
                        do you make "new" ones for this?
                      27. +1
                        10 January 2015 16: 31
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        did you meet them when you destroyed what? what an interesting selection of photos you have ... are you making "new" ones for this?

                        I met them much earlier, you know, it’s almost impossible to hide air defense systems in the desert for a long period of time, especially such as C-75 and C-200.
                      28. Kassandra
                        0
                        20 January 2015 17: 14
                        C-125 in the desert is just forgiving - you do not need to hammer sand.
                      29. +5
                        8 January 2015 17: 19
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        yes, any ... and these photos can not be false?

                        Of course they can, but what is the point of making false positions in peacetime? Or are China and Egypt at war with someone? In addition, capital concrete structures are clearly visible.
                      30. Kassandra
                        0
                        8 January 2015 20: 25
                        but to be. and clearly not visible ...

                        under the bombs and much closer monitoring, then it will not be so easy to do them later, if not too late at all.
      3. Kassandra
        0
        5 January 2015 22: 30
        This is not that ... laughing
        "Tempest", range 8500, streak 3,2M
      4. Kassandra
        +1
        6 January 2015 17: 34

        somehow like this...
      5. +1
        12 January 2015 19: 42
        be afraid of the designer, in the shot of RCC Strela, was in Cuba during the Caribbean crisis, potentially could not have RDS-5- but there are no such facts
        1. +1
          14 January 2015 06: 44
          Quote: bekfaer96
          be afraid of the designer, in the shot of RCC Strela, was in Cuba during the Caribbean crisis, potentially could not have RDS-5- but there are no such facts

          Volodya, FCR-1 with anti-ship missiles KS-1 had a common base. In Cuba, as well as in the GDR, the FKR-1 were located. My father served FCR-1 in the GDR in the mid-60's.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. anomalocaris
      0
      7 January 2015 07: 33
      I could not. Basically. Only if radically redo.
      1. Kassandra
        0
        7 January 2015 14: 16
        And why is that? bully
        1. anomalocaris
          0
          7 January 2015 15: 15
          Do you understand the difference between an air defense system and an earth-to-earth missile?
          1. Kassandra
            0
            7 January 2015 16: 10
            on "Nike" with nuclear warheads stationed in the NORAD missile defense system and in Korea, there was a fire translator on "Z-Z"

            SAM also often hit ships.
            1. anomalocaris
              +3
              7 January 2015 16: 47
              on "Nike" with nuclear warheads stationed in the NORAD missile defense system and in Korea, there was a fire translator on "Z-Z"

              Yeah. I remember remember, such a big lever on the left side ...
              And besides jokes, yes it was possible, but how effective is it with radio command guidance?
              SAM, especially low-altitude, like our S-125, is quite capable of capturing with its head a radio-contrast target, such as a ship. So, as they say, and purk would not be pa? That's just not often.
              Another conversation is that this and that are extreme measures and nothing more. This is about the same as hammering nails with a microscope, perhaps, but how necessary?
              1. Kassandra
                0
                7 January 2015 17: 02
                except for jokes, you can open an article about Nike-Hercules in the wiki and type Ctrl-F "Anti-surface application" there,

                Even "Wasp" was used in this way more than once. heavy damage to the corvette, the missile boat does so in general ... on large ships it damages the antenna system, and thereby blinds it for subsequent attacks.
                1. anomalocaris
                  +1
                  9 January 2015 10: 26
                  In addition to jokes, you can type a lot in the search engine. The question is, how efficiently does this work?
                  1. Kassandra
                    0
                    9 January 2015 13: 11
                    yes no questions - tested. and in the search engine it is painted in sufficient detail how it works bully
                    1. anomalocaris
                      +1
                      10 January 2015 12: 58
                      What exactly are you talking about?
                      1. Kassandra
                        0
                        20 January 2015 16: 46
                        And what do you think?
  6. 0
    5 January 2015 23: 40
    Original! To defend against an enemy nuclear attack, strike at your territory with your own nuclear weapons! Probably in the hope that the Russians will deploy their bombers from the radioactive ruins of the STGA (United terrorist states of America)! laughing
    1. +7
      6 January 2015 02: 50
      Quote: sharp-lad
      Original! To defend against an enemy nuclear attack, strike at your territory with your own nuclear weapons!


      A significant part of the Soviet air defense systems: C-25, C-125, C-75 and C-200 was equipped with nuclear warheads. And this didn’t bother anyone, with high-altitude explosions the damage to their infrastructure was ten times less than in the case of a breakthrough of nuclear bombers.
      1. Kassandra
        0
        6 January 2015 17: 16
        then it was still unknown that the destruction of the entire 100 BCH during 2 weeks would then destroy all life on the planet in just six months.
        and then they quickly banned the trials in three environments, and only the underground ones remained ...
        1. +6
          7 January 2015 08: 51
          Quote: Kassandra
          then it was still unknown that the destruction of the entire 100 BCH during 2 weeks would then destroy all life on the planet in just six months.

          Why do you think so? Only in the USSR more than 200 ground, air and underwater explosions were made.
          1. Kassandra
            0
            7 January 2015 14: 32
            and all with limited nuclear exchange (or exchange) for 2 weeks?

            with the results of modeling the effects of radioactive fallout.

            DropShot (with its 300 atomic bombs) could kill all living things on the planet.
            1. anomalocaris
              +2
              7 January 2015 15: 19
              The key word is "modeling". The funny thing is that it’s probably not that sad. But, to be honest, there is no way to check.
              1. Kassandra
                0
                7 January 2015 16: 13
                nothing funny, the new types of JabCh and their aging are now also modeled for a long time, like the weather forecast.
                1. anomalocaris
                  +1
                  7 January 2015 16: 53
                  That's about the conversation that the weather forecast for the most part is fortune-telling on coffee grounds.
                  Well, consider JBCH, so what? The miscalculation of the behavior of a nuclear charge during storage is one thing, but the calculation of its use is another. Like it or not.
                  1. Kassandra
                    0
                    7 January 2015 17: 03
                    this is someone like ... "phobos" - yes. NOAA - not really.

                    Don't you like "nuclear winter" either? so these are generally accurately calculated climatic changes and not much more easily calculated radioactive ones.
                    1. anomalocaris
                      +2
                      10 January 2015 13: 37
                      nuclear winter "don't you like it either? so it at all exactly climate change counted and not much more easily readable radiation.

                      The word "exactly", applied to the calculation of a non-deterministic model, amused me a lot.
                      I hate nuclear winter, but Aleksandrov's model is at least tendentious from the start. By the way, recent research on this topic gives much less apocalyptic results.
                      As for the radioactive contamination in a nuclear explosion, too, not everything is so scary.
                      1. +4
                        10 January 2015 13: 46
                        Quote: anomalocaris
                        As for the radioactive contamination in a nuclear explosion, too, not everything is so scary.

                        In the event of an air explosion, in the absence of contact with the ground - it is minimal and short-lived. At present, even at the sites of ground-based test explosions, the radioactive background is often close to normal.
                      2. anomalocaris
                        +2
                        10 January 2015 16: 28
                        So radioactive contamination of the area is, however, the most insignificant and undesirable damaging factor of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the mechanics of the explosion, in contrast to the chain reaction in the reactor, give rise to short-lived isotopes in a large number, and the mass of fissile material in the bomb is essentially not large, so the contamination of the area is relatively insignificant. Just look at Hiroshima from Nagasaki. Another conversation is that in the 60s there was a project of the so-called cobalt bomb, which was supposed to provide infection of the area. But when both ours and the Americans had a little understanding of this topic, the study was stopped and tried to forget about it. It was a terribly creepy picture.
                        The most important thing is that ANY weapon of mass destruction, be it nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, bacteriological weapons, is a weapon of genocide for the civilian population, because, as practice has shown, the army has enough defense means to minimize losses.
                      3. +4
                        10 January 2015 16: 37
                        Quote: anomalocaris
                        Another conversation is that in the 60 years there was a project of the so-called cobalt bomb, which was supposed to provide infection of the area.


                        Not only did the project exist, such a bomb with a cobalt screen around a nuclear charge was tested in the USSR. True, the power was minimal, while the contamination of the area approximately corresponded to a charge with a capacity of tens of times more.
                      4. anomalocaris
                        0
                        10 January 2015 16: 41
                        Well yes. After these tests, they counted and it turned out that undermining 3-4 charges at an altitude of 20-25 km made the Earth uninhabited. Not habitable at all, even cockroaches would die ...
                      5. Kassandra
                        0
                        20 January 2015 17: 34
                        which ones? to push each privately exposed BO / XO into the intensive care box in order to survive at least one of the companies, or to hold AKM on outstretched arms so that molten metal does not drip onto sopogi / berets and does not spoil state property?
                      6. Kassandra
                        0
                        20 January 2015 17: 30
                        yes, laugh ... math is an exact science.
  7. 0
    6 January 2015 09: 51
    Now these once formidable anti-aircraft missiles that carried nuclear weapons can only be seen in museums.

    ... as events in Ukraine show, museum exhibits behave "not badly" when necessary ...
  8. +3
    7 January 2015 11: 50
    Soviet air defense of those years was also equipped with missiles with nuclear charges. And this compensated for the lack of necessary accuracy. And the consequences of aerial nuclear explosions over their territory did not bother much fellow .
    1. Kassandra
      +1
      7 January 2015 15: 36
      only with the aim of hitting a large number of bursting bombers in tight battle formations at once, and with serious radio suppression.
    2. Kassandra
      0
      7 January 2015 17: 17
      Bomark was removed ahead of schedule, since the loaded missiles themselves and their ground support facilities began to emit radiation, and the nuclear "Nike" by the way, too, but to a lesser extent.
    3. Aladin
      0
      7 January 2015 22: 37
      And now they don’t bother - in 2013, before Putin arrived at Seliger, the ecologists launched the airship, so it rose higher and evaporated - the young people liked it and didn’t seem to die out yet ...
      1. Kassandra
        0
        7 January 2015 23: 23
        details interest ...
        1. Aladin
          0
          8 January 2015 13: 52
          There was an article in a series covering the youth forum on Seliger - there, among other entertainers, there were ecologists with an unmanned airship, and before Putin arrived (on the Be-200) they launched the airship by calling the Ministry of Emergencies, where they gave the go-ahead ... and the air defense structure is separate and noting the large low-speed they hit a target in an interesting place like Martians, encroaching on the most valuable ...
          From the ground they saw a flash and no debris, there were no other articles, slipped 1.
          1. Kassandra
            0
            8 January 2015 15: 07
            and, yes, I recall something ... by the way, it was quickly deleted.
            he could embed the Be-200 itself. laughing

            it was also such a joke when the American vice-consul drove into the fence of the Research Institute of Microbiology in Moscow, and even called in his guard, who was blocked on the road - the article also hung just about 5 minutes.
  9. 0
    7 January 2015 23: 36
    I wonder why our tactical missiles are not equipped with anti-ballistic missiles? Dimensions allow ...
    1. Kassandra
      0
      8 January 2015 01: 10
      leading traps.
  10. -1
    26 February 2021 23: 10
    "Tu-4, created on the basis of the American B-29 bomber"
    be precise in your wording. Not on the "base", but spizdili.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"