Strategic update

26
Strategic updateRussia and the United States noted the preservation of fundamental differences on the creation of missile defense in Europe. Earlier, Moscow warned that in case of failure of negotiations, it would be forced to give a military-technical response. However, experts note that Russia has already begun to increase its strategic nuclear potential, which the US missile defense system will not interfere with.

Fundamental differences remain between Russia and the United States on the deployment of the US missile defense system in Europe.

That is how the Russian Foreign Ministry commented on the results of the talks held on the eve between the co-chairs of the working group on arms control and international security of the Russian-American presidential commission Sergey Ryabkov and Ellen Tauscher. “It was stated that a number of fundamental differences remain in the position of Moscow and Washington. The dialogue will continue, ”the official statement of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasized.

Earlier, Moscow has repeatedly demanded that Washington, at a minimum, provide it with guarantees of the non-directionality of the system being developed in European countries against Russia.

However, the United States makes it clear that they are not ready to take such a step. “Due to the fact that Russia believes it is wrong, in our opinion, that the fourth stage of the plan to deploy components of the US missile defense system in Europe will pose a threat to their intercontinental ballistic missiles, we are now at an impasse in these negotiations. We will not sign legal documents that restrict our missile defense system. We are moving forward in deploying a missile defense system with Russia or without Russia, ”the future US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul said recently in the US Congress.

Russian authorities previously voiced the possible consequences of the failure of the negotiations. In particular, Moscow did not exclude withdrawal from the START-3 treaty, as well as the preparation of a “military technical response”. “The scientists, who will have to create such opportunities for the Russian Federation, which, in turn, will allow it to neglect any attempts to nullify its strategic balance, will take up the business. This neglect should be associated with a possible military-technical response, which has been repeatedly mentioned by the political and military leadership of Russia. We directly warn our partners about this and draw their attention to the fact that the meter has long been turned on, very little time is left, ”recalled Russia's permanent representative to NATO Dmitry Rogozin recently.

At the same time, observers note that Moscow has already begun to implement this threat, having begun to rapidly catch up with the United States in the field of strategic nuclear weapons. Only last month, three test launches of new ballistic missiles took place, designed not only to update the grouping of the country's strategic nuclear forces, but also to significantly increase its combat potential.

"May lose parity"

Recall, as of December 2010, according to the website Strategic Nuclear Weapons of Russia, the strategic nuclear forces included 611 strategic carriers capable of carrying 2679 nuclear warheads. The USA has 811 with 5966 nuclear warheads placed on them. The START-3 agreement signed by the two states assumes that the parties will reduce the number of nuclear warheads to 10 units over the next 1550 years, and the number of their carriers will not exceed 700 units.

“It would seem that there is no cause for concern. However, the pace of the withdrawal of Russian ballistic missiles and the commissioning of new ones from combat indicates that in the near future we may lose parity with the Americans, ”said Vadim Kozyulin, professor at the Academy of Military Sciences.

According to the expert, in the middle of 2008, the XMNUMX missile systems capable of carrying 415 nuclear warheads were in service with the Strategic Missile Forces. This is less on 1575 complexes than in 300.

By July of this year, only 369 missiles were left. They are capable of carrying 1247 nuclear warheads. And the rate of reduction will only increase, since the average age of the systems in service is very close to 30 years, while the warranty periods for them rarely exceed 15 years.

The sharp increase in purchases of strategic missiles in the framework of the state defense order does not solve the problem either. According to 2010 and 2011’s plans, strategic forces should receive 30 machines per year. However, these are mainly Topol-M monoblock missile systems and the "three-headed" RS-24 "Yars" missile. Putting them into service will also not narrow the existing gap with the United States.

“The main focus is on missile defense”

As part of the state armaments program up to 2020, it is planned to spend billion rubles on the creation of mass production of new 77 missile systems.

In addition, it was decided to modernize the existing missile systems and start creating a new - heavy liquid ballistic missile. This fundamentally new missile should replace the PC-20 "Voevoda" strategic complex, which is better known under the western designation SS-18 Satan. These machines form the basis of the land group of strategic nuclear forces. The total number of such missiles in Russia is 58, each of which carries 10 warheads ranging from 0,55 to 0,75 megatons, which in TNT equivalent is from 40 to 50 of American bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 year.

The work on the new rocket was entrusted to the Makeev Design Bureau from Miass. The company says that the new liquid ballistic missile, which received the code name "Breakthrough", will significantly exceed the PC-20. In particular, it will be able to throw up to 15 medium or up to 10 heavy nuclear warheads over a distance of more than 10 thousand km. At the same time, new missiles will be placed in the same mines in which 30-year-old Voevods are now living out.

“The main focus of the development of the new machine is on overcoming promising anti-missile defense systems, including laser interception systems,” explained Viktor Esin, a former chief of the main headquarters of the Strategic Missile Forces, an expert in the field of intercontinental missiles. “For this, a whole range of state-of-the-art missile defense technology will be implemented on the new machine.”

In anticipation of the "Breakthrough" Miass demonstrated a substantially modernized sea ballistic missile RSM-54 "Sineva", called the "Liner". A successful test launch of this vehicle was carried out on September 29 from aboard the strategic nuclear submarine missile carrier Tula in the Barents Sea. RSM-54 "Sineva" is designed for nuclear submarines of the project 667BDRM type "Dolphin". This liquid rocket is considered one of the best in its class by the criterion of “mass of the rocket to the weight it throws”: with the weight of 40 tons it delivers over a distance of more than 11 thousand km to the 10 nuclear warheads.

According to Makeev Design Bureau, the Liner rocket surpasses all modern solid-fuel strategic missiles of Great Britain, China, Russia, the United States and France in energy and mass perfection, and in combat equipment (four blocks of the middle class of power) is not inferior to the four-block (in the START-3) American Trident-2.

The Liner rocket can carry in 1,5 – 2 more times the warheads of a small power class than the Bulava rocket, which can be equipped with six such units. In addition, the "Liner" can be equipped with a mixed set of warheads of different power classes.

“Thanks to these missile complexes, a real possibility exists for the existence of a north-western grouping of submarines of the 667 BDRM project before 2025 – 2030. At the same time, the presence of multiple combat equipment will make it possible to quickly respond to changing military and political circumstances, ”noted Makeyev Design Bureau.

The Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering, where the Topol-M and Yars complexes were created, also showed its decision to increase the combat effectiveness of the grouping of land strategic missiles.

Also at the end of September, a test launch of the Avangard rocket was conducted from the Plesetsk cosmodrome. Start was unsuccessful. The rocket fell eight kilometers from the launch site. Nevertheless, notable were the statements of the Space Forces representatives, who confirmed that the launch was carried out by representatives of the Moscow Thermal Engineering Institute and that during the tests the new missile equipment was tested. All this allowed the experts to judge that Avangard was a further development of the Yars complex, adopted last year by the Strategic Missile Forces and, unlike him, can carry not 10 nuclear warheads, but three.

One of the most important details of the development will be that, like the Yars Avangard, is likely to be placed both in the mine and on the mobile launchers, which, in addition to increasing the impact power of the complex, will increase its combat effectiveness.

“Today it is impossible to judge the enemy’s combat potential only by the number of weapons it has,” says the head of the AST Center, Ruslan Pukhov. - This applies to both conventional weapons and strategic nuclear forces. Ultimately, everything is determined by their technological and amazing capabilities. "

Judging by the statements of the developers, the characteristics of the new rocket complexes will more than meet the requirements of reality.
Our news channels

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

26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    17 October 2011 07: 50
    The Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering, where the Topol-M and Yars complexes were created, also showed its decision to increase the combat effectiveness of the grouping of land strategic missiles.

    Also at the end of September, a test launch of the Avangard rocket was conducted from the Plesetsk cosmodrome. The start was unsuccessful. The rocket fell eight kilometers from the launch site.


    Something is not all right in the Danish Kingdom (MIT). That mace cannot be taught to fly, now the novelty will not fly either. At this rate, Avangard will become obsolete at the testing stage. Give everything to Miass and all business.
    1. +3
      17 October 2011 22: 16
      Are you dad completely fucking up or pretending to be? how to be an idiot to expect from the first Spanish. start immediately positive?
      The last sentence is generally a clinic for them. Kashchenko.
      1. +1
        18 October 2011 07: 27
        I will keep silent about the idiot, on your conscience. If we look at the ratio of successful and unsuccessful launches of the "mace", then there is no reason to expect something intelligible either from the first or from the 10th launch of the "Vanguard" (I would like to be wrong). Miass (practice has shown) launches are much more successful ("liner"). In general, MIT has always dealt with land missiles, and Miass with sea missiles. So let people do what they can. Example: MIT- "Poplar".
        Py.Sy According to my observations, you are on this forum a freelance Troll. In any topic, write in order to write.
        1. +1
          18 October 2011 08: 57
          Well, let's start. First, let's figure out the logic. As is known from the media, Avangard is the development of YARS, i.e. refers to the PGRK. Here I have a question, what did you drag "Bulava" to, it would not be more logical to compare it with Spanish. launches of RS-24? The very theme is Spanish. launches are so obvious that even the cap is powerless here. Due to the hysteria raised by the media, any unsuccessful use. the launch of ICBMs is perceived as a complete failure of the entire topic. Further, the number of launches is not a self-sufficient value, as the values ​​of Ppuska and Ppolet specified in the TZ will be achieved, then the complex will be adopted for service. For self-education, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the Spanish. launches R-29RM (big greetings to Sineva and Liner) and only then try to enter into any discussion on the topic.
          The second, what is there with the pace of development and implementation of the ToRs at the GRC on R-39? Do not remind? How did the GRC cooperation on turbojet engines after the collapse of the USSR? And these are just one of the many reasons why MIT is dealing with this topic.
          Your comments on the level of proficiency in the issue and the proposed solutions (take and give away!) Just pull to the level of a fat troll, moreover, not out of school age, ololo.
          1. 0
            18 October 2011 09: 56
            Further, the number of starts is not a self-sufficient quantity.

            Of course it’s not, but the number of successful ones (took off, flew, hit the target), of course it is. I understand that it is possible to appeal TK, GRC, the cooperation of the GRC on TRD and many other interesting abbreviations (it will be interesting for specialists), a fact on the face: there is a product and it must fly !!! Yes, even if not the first time, but not the 12th + -. This also applies to ICBMs and PGRK. One gets the impression that MIT wants to bite off a budget pie and no more, while creating the appearance of work.
            1. 0
              18 October 2011 13: 37
              Well, what, my friend, have screwed up again to the fullest? But I gave a chance, asking to get acquainted with Spanish. launches of other rockets. And of course, whoever knows how to make a noob, with the knowledge of shkolota, to determine from which launch (!) The product (!!) will fly, and even apply these criteria to ICBMs and PGRK (here I generally died, lol). One gets the impression that Veter wants to bite off a bigger piece from Nubian profanism, while creating the appearance of knowledge.
              Well, last chance, keywords R-39, Nenox, go ahead.
              1. 0
                18 October 2011 13: 49
                Ohhh, thank you very much for the chance !!! I am not going to create the appearance of knowledge. In this case, a scientific degree is not needed to understand: MIT is not all right. There is a product and it DOES NOT FLY !!!
                By the way, you are not an employee of MIT?
                1. 0
                  19 October 2011 06: 32
                  Eh, nothing shkololo does not want to learn ... And here the appearance of knowledge? It’s just that you need to have a little mastery of the subject before you fool around your vysers.
                  Or did I understand that it gives you a voluptuous pleasure when you are publicly humiliated? Well, the last portion, the last 4 starts were completely successful and went through normally. By the way, the GRTshnaya part of the cooperation on the production of the R-30 was to blame for almost all the unsuccessful launches, but the schoolchildren does not even know this, what a mischief ...
                  1. 0
                    19 October 2011 07: 12
                    Heh, you're already at work, sharpening your mace? As in the well-known anecdote: "finalize with a file to get a locomotive"
                    And then the appearance of knowledge?

                    and at the same time
                    ... bite off a bigger piece from Nubian profanism, while creating the appearance of knowledge.

                    Well, the last portion

                    like the last ???? The whisker is over?
                    The last 4 starts were completely successful and went through normally.

                    still, if they screwed up, then MITovtsev would have to disperse you along the collective farm markets, and some would put someone behind for cutting budget money and it would not be necessary to push everything for cooperation. The merchants pretended to be hoses and shout that the GRTS part is to blame for everything, and we are white and fluffy, but with dough. Convenient position, only knees can be rubbed
                    1. 0
                      19 October 2011 07: 50
                      Hehe, something I didn’t look at first at komentola shkololo, poplar smokers, it’s already full ... mockery, go teach lessons, baby, this is not your place.
                      1. 0
                        19 October 2011 08: 00
                        And you don't look at other comments, it's not yours. And don't take it literally, "professor." Looks like it really was the last portion. And do not show me the place, but go quietly and buzz with a file. Good luck.
    2. 0
      17 October 2011 22: 34
      The child also does not immediately run respected begins. Missiles also need to be taught, in this case, taught to fly to the target. So, do not be afraid, everything is going according to plan.
      1. -1
        18 October 2011 07: 28
        See the answer for Varnaga
  2. itr
    0
    17 October 2011 10: 30
    for glamorous institute of heat engineering it is time to rock with the consequences !!!!!!!!!!!
    1. +1
      17 October 2011 22: 16
      And that will be? He himself realized that he was heating up?
  3. +4
    17 October 2011 14: 55
    Trains would be made with missiles ... Why they were cut, and why they won’t do new ones, I have only one answer to this question, although I still can’t believe it ...
    1. Marat
      +2
      17 October 2011 20: 29
      Yes - the trains were clearly a good solution for our land country
      But while we are "under pendos" in all senses as losers of the Cold War - there will be no trains yet - the "Washington Regional Committee" will immediately pronounce a reprimand
      The current government will gradually "climb out" from under the "yoke" - here Kudrin was fired - they are not in a hurry to surrender Syria - they are trying to support Iran - they are reviving the Union - a lot of things are being done - it's a pity it is slow

      We could get out of the "yoke" right now - without delay - and trains would appear, etc. - and no isolation would arise - and the Pendos would have come to terms with the new alignment of forces - but the main factor interferes - a significant part of the people of Russia (and in republics too) carries in their heads the ideas introduced by the enemy that prevent the revival of our empire
    2. +1
      17 October 2011 22: 18
      I wonder what is this answer? You probably have in your hands the results of research on this topic, where the advantage of "trains" over PGRK is shown? And there probably is a feasibility study of the project? What about the infrastructure for "trains"?
      1. +1
        17 October 2011 22: 46
        BZHRK harder to identify on the march, because it looks like a regular composition. and the length of combat patrol routes almost the entire railway network of Russia. PGRK and even with military security can even be recognized by a simple satellite photo, and patrol routes are very limited. And with the infrastructure of the PGRK is more difficult. Most automobile bridges cannot withstand such a mass.
        1. +1
          17 October 2011 23: 53
          Combat patrol routes - the whole country, it all depends on the situation. And with "Military danger" no one will be substituted for satellites, for the sake of pedos, as it is now. The satellite situation is clearly monitored and the disguised PBSP in the forest can be detected even from a helicopter is a problem. PGRK is not needed, diesel fuel from time to time and enough. Few people know, but it was under the requirements of the Strategic Missile Forces in the USSR that bridges and roads, both automobile and railway, were redesigned. In the extreme there are sappers, the Topol passes through the pontoon ferry calmly, we tried it!
          1. 0
            18 October 2011 20: 40
            I don’t know a colleague, I still served under Leonid Ilyich, guarded the mine BSP.
            At one time, both BSP and even concrete blocks leading to the BSP were painted in green, then thrown. it turns out that they are clearly visible in the infrared range, as if in the palm of your hand, the temperature of heating in the surrounding forest, concrete and BSP is different.
      2. kesa1111
        +1
        17 October 2011 23: 37
        See: Special Train.
      3. 0
        19 October 2011 07: 22
        And the train did not please? And does he really need much more infrastructure than a PGRK? PGRK from space is much easier to trace than a train. PGRK has a more limited travel route. I am waiting for the opinion of a "specialist"

        Py.SY abbreviations of the type: Research (research work) ShNIR, etc. Do not throw, not at a symposium.
  4. +3
    17 October 2011 16: 58
    We are moving forward in deploying a missile defense system with or without Russia, ”said the future US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, recently in the US Congress.

    and maybe then our leadership openly "put" on them?
  5. kesa1111
    +3
    17 October 2011 23: 20
    The idea is correct, there were 10 on the Governor, too, and with individual guidance they weren’t particularly smart. The fact that time is removed from the database can not be given to amers (Gore-Chernomyrdin deal) but put on the Vanguards.
  6. Pol
    +2
    17 October 2011 23: 38
    Yes, it's high time to "put" and toughly answer!
    And then they crumple the tit with a cockroach "give us guarantees that it will not be directed against Russia" ....
    Yes, even if they give - a penny to them !!!
    This is not to be claimed! And it is to demand, not to ask !!!! Or just confront the fact !!!!

"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"