Military Review

B61 - Presidents 11 Bomb

48
B61 - Presidents 11 BombIn a difficult international environment, which can be described as the “2.0 Cold War,” both “warring” parties are forced to take defensive actions. However, they often become aggressive. These are precisely the decisions of the Pentagon to modernize their tactical nuclear weapons. weapon airborne - aerial bombs of the B61 family - and locate them in the territory of European NATO countries.


A SEDUCED SOMETHING REMAINS


In the second half of September of this year. in the media referring to the German television channel ZDF, it was reported that the US is preparing to deploy in the foreseeable future in Germany a new modification of its B61-12 nuclear bombs, under the carriers of which it was decided to adapt the Tornado fighter-bombers from the German Air Force. It was reported that 20 such bombs will be placed at the Büchel air base in Rhineland-Palatinate, and in the future they will appear in Turkey and Italy.

Washington "kept the intrigue" for a while, but after a couple of days at the National Nuclear Security Administration, the United States stated that, say, new aerial bombs could not be placed in Germany in the near future, since their production, or rather, modernization of the existing bombs of the family B61 earlier modifications will start no earlier than 2020 of the year. And funds in the budget are allocated only for upgrading the actual carrier aircraft - Tornado fighter and F-61 fighters-bomber aircraft to the B16 version.

The fears have been dispelled, but the sediment, as they say, has remained: as soon as the B61-12 bombs appear physically, they, apparently, first of all materialize exactly at airbases in Europe. Aircraft carriers for them by that time will be ready, and the pilots will receive appropriate training. Although speaking frankly, the fact that the Pentagon is requesting funds to adapt the German and Italian Tornado and Belgian, Dutch and Turkish F-16А / В to the German and Italian Tornadoes and plans to implement it in 2015 – 2018 years was known in 2014 year. So the German channel revealed the secret of Polichinel. It is not clear only - why.

However, this does not negate the main thing: in the end, all the arguments about the possibility of the withdrawal of the latter type of American nuclear weapons deployed in Europe remained useless conversations. The tenth serial modification of the B61 family of bombs, which faithfully served the 11 presidents of the United States, will continue to pose a threat to the idea of ​​a nuclear-free world and the next owner of the Oval Office.

UNIVERSAL WEAPON

For a long time, the nuclear air bombs of the B61 family were the most versatile and most widespread type of nuclear ammunition in the arsenal of the US armed forces and their NATO allies. It is noteworthy that the only significant changes that were recently made to the design of the bombs since its introduction into service in the 1967 year, were improvements to ensure a higher degree of safety of its storage and operation, plus a modification was created, designed to defeat deeply underground and well-protected enemy targets. And only В61-12 is already a seriously modified version, which can be attributed to the new generation.

The base B61 has a caliber of 700 pounds (about 317,5 kg), a little more than 3,5 m in length and a little more than 33 diameter. See, however, there are several other modifications of the bombs, which already have often quite significant differences. So, the B61-11 Earth Penetrating Nuclear Gravity Bomb bomb (translated from the English “Penetrating (Deeparable) Nuclear Free-Falling Bomb”) weighs about 1200 pounds (about 544 kg).

In total, it is alleged, 3155 bombs of the B61 family were released, and the total stock of bombs in the arsenal of the US Armed Forces, including those stored in European NATO countries, is estimated by a number of experts in 1925 units, including those that are in storage. In the report “B61-12: A New Guided Nuclear Bomb Used Outside the Zone of Enemy Air Defense Forces” (“B61-12: The New Guided Stand Nuclear Nuclear”) by Hans M. Christensen, Director of the Nuclear Weapons Information Project of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS ), from 2014, it is indicated that today the US Armed Forces have 825 equipped with B61 bombs of various modifications, including 180 - at air bases in Europe.

CREATURE


The development of a B61 type nuclear bombs (TX-1968 before the 61 of the year), begun by experts at the Los Alamos laboratory at the turn of 1960 – 1961 as part of the “light nuclear munition” program, was completed on the whole in 1963. Pre-production for the assembly of the first, experienced, ammunition was launched in 1965 year, and the first bombs of the new family descended from the "death conveyor" in October 1966 year. The following year, the V61 was adopted by the US Armed Forces, but due to a number of identified problems, the high-volume production of this type of bombs was started only in the 1968 year.

According to information published in American specialized sources, the B61 family of nuclear bombs were mass-produced in six modifications: Mod 0, Mod 1, Mod 2, Mod 3, Mod 4 and Mod 5. Mod 1/3/4 modifications were withdrawn from service and destroyed and the rest - Mod 0, Mod 2 and Mod 5 - went through modernization, including with the aim of increasing the safety of their storage and operation. However, the program for further modernization of the B61 family of bombs was canceled, and the modifications of Mod 6, Mod 8 and Mod 9 were not born. Strategic aviation only the B61-7 bomb turned out to be, while the tactical B61-10 is a “remade” combat unit of the Pershing II BR.

For several decades, nuclear bombs of the B61 family were, as the Americans say, bread and butter for specialists at the National Laboratory in Los Alamos, constantly acting as guinea pigs or laboratory mice for nuclear physicists and nuclear weapons specialists.

In the period from 1963 to 1968, a series of underground nuclear explosions (tests) were conducted at the test site in the state of Nevada to check the current state of the B61 type bombs and practically confirm their characteristics, which was required by the customer. So, 30 June 1966, the test was carried out bomb type B61 at full capacity, received the code name Shot Halfbeak. The power of a nuclear explosion was 350 kt. In the same year, another five underground nuclear explosions were carried out, and in the middle of 1970-ies - a new series of nuclear explosions to test the B61-3 / -4 bombs entered service by the US military in 1979.

The combat use of the B61, depending on the modification, could have been carried out from a high or low altitude in four ways that are still relevant today:

- an airborne nuclear explosion under the condition of the so-called free fall of the bomb;

- air nuclear explosion, carried out with a temporary delay;

- a ground (or surface) nuclear explosion subject to the free fall of an aerial bomb;

- a ground-based nuclear explosion subject to the execution of a bombing from a height of no more than 50 feet (about 15,24 m).

The latter low-altitude bombing method was called laydown in American military terminology, and the main condition for its successful implementation is the non-destruction of the 61 after its impact on the ground. A special braking parachute system is intended to help in this. Moreover, the parachute reduces the free-fall speed of the aerial bomb, and corrects its trajectory. In the first versions of the 61, a nylon parachute with a dome diameter of 17 feet (5,18 m) was used, then a larger one, with a dome diameter of 24 ft (7,32 m), the parachute, which was used to manufacture two types of material, nylon and kevlar, was used.

SERVICE


Nuclear air bombs of the B61 family entered service with various strategic aircraft (in this case bombs with a maximum power charge were used) and tactical (modification with a lower power charge) aircraft of the US Air Force and the Air Force of their NATO allies, including:

- strategic aviation: aircraft B-52, FB-111, B-1B, B-2A;

- tactical aviation: aircraft F-100, F-104, F-4, F-105, F-15 / F-15E, F-16 of various modifications, F-111, F-117 and Tornado of various modifications.


The first flight tests of the B61-12 were conducted using the F-15E fighter. Photos from www.nnsa.energy.gov

This bomb was also adopted by the US Navy and the US Marine Corps: modifications of the B61-2 and B61-5 were included in the ammunition of A-4, A-6, A-7 and F / A-18 aircraft. However, after the US Navy command, in the beginning of the 1990s, taking into account the changing world military-political situation (the disappearance of the main strategic enemy in the person of the USSR), refused to use aircraft carrier as a means of delivery of nuclear weapons, all B61 bombs were eliminated from the arsenal fleet.

Note that the 61 was used in the work on the creation of a whole group of nuclear warheads of other weapons:

- type W69 - for short range ALCMs AGM-69 SRAM, which was part of the B-52, FB-111A and B-1В armament (warhead length - 760 mm, diameter - 380 mm, weight - 124,7 kg, power - from 100 to 200 ct). Issued about 1500 such warheads;

- type W73 - for the AGM-53 "Condor" long-range ALCM. The program for creating the warhead was closed in 1970 - the only decision was made to create a non-nuclear warhead for the rocket, and in March the Condor program itself was closed for the 1976;

- type W80-0 - for BGM-109 TLAM-N “Tomahawk” SLCM (warhead length is 797,5 mm, diameter is 300 mm, weight is 131,5 kg, power is 5 ct or 170 – 200 ct). 367 warhead released;

- type W80-1 - for ALCM AGM-86 ALCM and modernized ALCM AGM-129 AFM. Characteristics are similar to the previous warhead, released around 1750 warheads;

- type W81 - the planned version of a nuclear warhead with 2 – 4 kt capacity for the SM-2 SAM “Standard” SAM missile system, did not go into development;

- type W84 - developed by the Livermore National Laboratory. Ernest Lawrence option for a ground-based cruise missile BGM-109G "Griffin", created on the basis of SLCMB "Tomahawk". In general, the warhead was similar to warheads of the W80 type for SLCM and ALCMs, but it had several excellent characteristics: length - 863 mm, diameter - 330 mm, weight - 176 kg. About 300 – 350 of W84-type combat units were released, with the Griffin missile systems destroyed under the INF Treaty, but, according to American sources, the combat units are still in storage;

- type W85 - for the Pershing II rocket (warhead length - 1100 mm, diameter - 330 mm, weight - 400 kg, power - from 5 to 80 кт). 120 combat units were released, later converted into В61-10 aerial bombs;

- type W86 - planned to develop a modernized warhead for Pershing II missiles, designed to destroy deep in the ground and well-protected enemy targets. In the development and production is not transferred.

An interesting episode occurred with the W85 warhead of the medium-range Pershing II missiles. December 7 The 1987 of the Year was signed by the Treaty on the Reduction of Medium and Short Range Missiles (INF), which among other things obliged the US to eliminate all Pershing II. However, the Americans, having destroyed all the missiles and their launchers by the middle of 1991, dismantled the combat parts of the missiles and “converted” into nuclear bombs of the type B61, which then, according to American sources, were returned - already in a new capacity - to Europe. Thus, having removed missiles with nuclear warheads from European countries - NATO allies, the American military-political leadership actually returned the same combat units back, but already in the form of the ВХNUMX-61 bombs. To do this, the nuclear "filling" was removed from W10 and placed in the body of the bomb. In general, the Americans, observing what is called the letter of the treaty, violated its spirit, not at all contributing to the reduction of nuclear tensions. True, today B85-61 are no longer located in Europe, they are removed from service and sent to storage.

The US military subdivides all the B61 family bombs in service today into two types: strategic and tactical. The first is the B61-7 modification produced from 1985 to 1990 year, as well as a later modification - “penetrating” B61-11, obtained by upgrading an earlier modification. The tactical B61 family is represented by the Mod 3, Mod 4 and Mod 10 variants.

The B61-7 aerial bomb was included in the payload of the B-52 and B-2 strategic bombers, its distinguishing feature is the ability to change power: 10 or 340 CT. An interim version was reported, but the information about it was not officially made public. In turn, the B61-11 is a “penetrating” ammunition for hitting deep-seated highly protected objects.

A distinctive feature of the B61-11 is its fixed power: according to different data, either 10 CT or 340 CT. Although some foreign specialized sources state that the nuclear “stuffing” of the 11 model bombs is no different from that of the 7 model, and therefore the B61-11 should have three options: 10 CT, 340 CT or an intermediate version, information about which is missing. A number of sources mention that the B61-11 is equipped with a special set of its stabilization in flight — two small rocket engines fixed in the middle part of the bomb.

Flight tests of the 61-11 were conducted at ranges in the states of Nevada and Alaska from the F-16, B-1B and B-52 aircraft. The first four serial bombs of this type were transferred to the US Air Force in December 1996 of the year. In 1997, the 50-61 aerial bombs were converted to 7-61 and transferred to storage at Whiteman Air Force, Missouri, where B-11 bombers, which had a total of 4, were wed. ammunition. The remaining B2-1997 aerial bombs were deposited in the arsenals of Barksdale (Louisiana), Minot (North Dakota), Nellis (Nevada) and Kirtland (New Mexico) air bases.

It is noteworthy that during the test was planned for the role of "killer bins» (bunker busters) V61-11 bomb held in 1998 year at the landfill in Alaska bombs able to penetrate deep into the frozen ground only 2-3 m, whereas conventional, non-nuclear bomb GBU -28 caliber 5000 pounds (about 2268 kg) can, under equal conditions of combat use, punch up to 6 m of reinforced concrete. Thus, a nuclear explosion at B61-11, having a QUO around 110 – 170 m, will occur very close to the surface, without causing an enemy object located deep underground. GBU-28, however, has a large mass and can not be used by every aircraft, but it is cheaper and easier to use, and most importantly it does not apply to nuclear weapons and does not require additional “gestures” to give legitimacy to the fact of its combat use.

As for tactical aerial bombs, today the US Armed Forces have modifications Mod 3, Mod 4 and Mod 10, the vast majority of which, according to American sources, are stored in the arsenals of the Nellis and Kirtland airbases. The 61-10 bombs are stored only. Presumably, a number of tactical B61 can be located at Seymour Johnson, North Carolina airbase, and at least 150 bombs are located in the territory of European NATO countries and are reserved for use by their air forces in a special period.

For the “nuclear missions”, aviation units in Belgium are defined (Klein Brogel airbase is near 10 – 20 bombs, 44 bombs can be stored as far as possible, carriers are F-16А / B of the Belgian Air Force), Germany (Büchel airbase is approximately 10 – 20 bombs, maximum - 44 bombs, carriers - PA-200 "Tornado" of the German Air Force), Italy (Aviano and Gedi Tore airbases - 50 and 10 – 20 bombs, respectively, maximum - 72 and 40 bombs, carriers - American F-16C / D and Italian RA -200 "Tornado"), the Netherlands (Folkel Air Base - 10 – 20 bombs, maximum - 44 bombs, n The axles are F-16А / In the Dutch Air Force) and Turkey (Incirlik Air Base - 60 – 70 bombs, carriers - F-16А / In the Turkish Air Force and US Air Force aircraft deployed here on a rotational basis).

Greece declined such “honorable” responsibility, and in 2001, the B61 bombs stocks were withdrawn from its territory by the Americans. In addition, if at 2001 a year, the total stocks of nuclear bombs of the B61 family in Europe were estimated at about 480 units, then in subsequent years the deadly arsenal of the Americans was still reduced. The report “American Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Europe, 2011 Year” by Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Christensen states that by 2007 due to the evacuation of stocks of B61 nuclear bombs from the arsenals of Ramstein airbases (Germany) and Lackenhit (United Kingdom), the cumulative The type of nuclear bombs in Europe has been reduced to less than 200 units. According to Assistant US Under Secretary of Defense for Politics James N. Miller, he told 2009 in July at a briefing with journalists, in Europe, the US military has 180 bombs from the B61 family. At the same time, we note that the NATO air forces regularly conduct exercises to test the “distribution and use” of the VXNXX air bombs stored in Europe in a special period.

NEW GENERATION


In May, 2010 of the year, the National Nuclear Security Administration, organizationally part of the US Department of Energy, requested 40 million from the congress to upgrade B61, including its adaptation to the new carrier, the Lightning II F-35 (JSF). According to the information contained in the request, the new fighter was to receive, by 2017, the ability to carry this type of nuclear weapon in the internal weapons compartment. Moreover, the United States 2010 Nuclear Policy Review states: “Production of a JSF aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon and a B61-12 nuclear bombs will allow the United States to retain the ability to deploy advanced non-strategic nuclear weapons in order to fulfill NATO allies obligations.” The document also notes that the implementation of the program will not lead to the creation of a munition "capable of solving new combat missions" and will not allow "expanding combat capabilities."

A new modification of the bomb was given the designation Mod 12 (B61-12). It was planned to create a 50 CT bomb on the basis of the B61-4, but with the inclusion in its design of "a number of elements and features of the B61-3, B61-7 and B61-10 models", which it should replace in the future. B61-12 will also allow the disposal of a small number of B83-type 1,2 MT-made nuclear bombs, which were put into service in the 1983 year, intended for use only on B-2A bombers and described by the US military as a “relic of the Cold War”.

Moreover, it was decided to equip the bomb with a special TSA kit (Tail SubAssembly), designed to convert conventional free-falling non-nuclear bombs into actually controlled munitions with increased range and accuracy of use (the generic designation Joint Direct Attack Munition is assigned to the data family of aviation weapons).

The new tail section will make it possible to abandon the parachute system and improve the accuracy of the bombs: the QUO will be 30 m, which, taking into account the bombshell 30 – 68 m diameter created by the explosion, depending on the type of soil, according to the former US Air Force commander Gen. Norton Schwartz , will allow in any case to “cover” the attacked bunker. Increased accuracy also reduces the power of a nuclear warhead bomb. “Without a doubt, increased accuracy and lower warhead power are extremely necessary,” General Schwartz stressed in January 2014 during a special event dedicated to the B61 family of bombs modernization program. At the same time, answering the question of whether this will ultimately lead to an expansion of the range of targets being hit or simply make existing weapons better, the general said: “The effect will be twofold.” He also added that the capabilities of the new bomb will enhance the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrence policy, since the enemy will know: America has high-precision nuclear weapons, which it is ready to use if necessary.

Structurally, the TSA kit is a nozzle with four rudders, controlled by commands from the onboard inertial navigation system, and gives the bomb another feature: it can be dropped from an aircraft at a greater distance from the target, without entering the enemy's air defense zone.

The B61 (Life Extension Program - LEP) program for upgrading and extending the service life of bombs, within which it is also planned to unify the entire family, is one of the most expensive in the defense budget of America. The first work on the topic was started jointly by specialists from the Air Force and the US National Nuclear Security Administration in February 2012, after approval received from the Nuclear Weapons Council, formed by the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Directorate of the US Department of Energy for increasing the efficiency of interaction and coordination between the two ministries in the field of the development, production and operation of nuclear weapons.

However, as the work progresses, the cost of the program has seriously increased - more than doubled. And already in 2013, the Pentagon requested more than 11 billion dollars for these purposes (initially around 4 billion), of which 10 billion was for upgrading the bombs and their nuclear charge, and 1,2 billion for equipment for the TSA set of bombs.

Plus, several hundred million dollars, it is estimated, will be spent on upgrading a new bomb of five types of aircraft, including the corresponding fighter-bombers of the Belgian, Dutch, Italian, German and Turkish Air Forces (plus 154 million dollars to increase the security of bombs at European airbases), as well as such aircraft of the American Air Force - F-15E fighters (modification of aircraft started in 2013 year), F-16C / D, F-35A and B-2A bombers. Moreover, adaptation of only F-61A under 12-35 already in 2012 was estimated at no less than 340 million dollars. Serial production was planned for 2021 year, and the lifetime of 400 – 500 modernized bombs should be at least 20 years.

Congress, of course, such expenses for which B61-12 even received the nickname “golden bomb” from American journalists, met with hostility, demanding that they once again study the issue and look for an alternative. However, later, on the wave of the beginning of the new confrontation along the east-west line, the program received a green light. Moreover, they even moved the start of production - by 2020 year.

As part of the development of the B61-12 modification, its model was run-in in a wind tunnel at Arnold airbase. It is alleged that in the framework of this test, the joint work of a stabilization kit borrowed from the B61-11 and a new tail set with rudders was studied. The very first flight test, the throwing one, was performed by experts from the US Air Force and the US National Nuclear Security Administration from the F-15E fighter “Strike Eagle” 1 on July 2015 of the year, at the Tonopah range in Nevada. For the tests, a bomb designed by the specialists of the Sandia and Los Alamos national laboratories, assembled at the enterprises of the national nuclear complex and equipped with a Boeing tail kit was used. The study of the behavior of the latter, as stated, was one of the main objectives of this test. Two more flight tests of the B61-12 prototype must be conducted before the end of the year, and a preliminary project assessment is planned for 2016.

The first flight test caused a rather sharp reaction in Russia. In particular, the Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, Anatoly Antonov, stressed that the work on improving the B61 family of bombs and the test "confirm the US intention to preserve deployed nuclear weapons in Europe that can reach Russian territory and ensure their maximum combat effectiveness." “We also see this as evidence of the persistent unwillingness of the American side to refuse to involve non-nuclear NATO member states in the implementation of joint nuclear missions,” the deputy minister said.

Let us add that by improving its tactical nuclear weapons, and even storing them outside the national territory while simultaneously teaching its use to military personnel from other countries (even if they are allies in the bloc - a relic of the cold war), Washington loses any moral right to even stammer tactical nuclear weapons or greater transparency on the part of Moscow in this matter. And the words of President Obama about some kind of nuclear-free world look in the light of such actions somewhat, to put it mildly, strange.

FILLED CHICKEN

It should be especially emphasized that today the B61 family of air bombs remained the only type of nuclear weapons of the US Armed Forces, which are outside the United States on a permanent basis. Not counting, of course, nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles of strategic submarine rocket carriers that are in combat duty in the depths of the ocean, since the other warships and US aircraft, according to the Pentagon, do not carry nuclear weapons on board.

This creates the threat of the use of such weapons in a wider range of situations than the use of strategic nuclear weapons or tactical nuclear weapons stored in the territory of the United States. And the more incomprehensible is the Pentagon’s desire to keep the B61 nuclear bombs in Europe, given that a number of Washington’s NATO allies have their own nuclear weapons. NATO’s strategic concept, adopted at the Lisbon summit in November 2010, reaffirmed that the alliance will continue to rely on the safety of its members on nuclear weapons, and on the fate of the B61 family of nuclear bombs located in European countries - members of the bloc, it was decided to link their arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons with Russia.

The deployment of modernized B61-12 bombs in Europe will seriously worsen the situation and create new threats, in particular - for the national security of Russia. This is due to the fact that as a result of such a move, the US will place in the Old World not just an improved nuclear weapon, but actually controlled highly accurate nuclear weapons, which, being tactical by classification, will in reality be able to erase the boundaries between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. This state of affairs in no way contributes to defusing international tensions, but only once again will lead to a deterioration in relations between the United States and its NATO allies on the one hand, and Russia on the other. It also creates a dangerous precedent for the application of these bombs during any conflicts or problem situations on the European continent.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2015-10-09/1_bomb.html
48 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bongo
    Bongo 11 October 2015 06: 05 New
    +3
    Quite detailed and interesting publication "+", but there are a number of controversial points.
    For example:
    The Pentagon is requesting funds to adapt the German and Italian Tornadoes and the Belgian, Dutch and Turkish F-16А / В to the new nuclear bomb and plans to implement it in 2015-2018
    It is unlikely No. By the time the B61-12 is put into service, and this will not happen before 2020, most of the early modifications of the F-16A / B and Tornado fighter-bombers will be written off due to wear and tear.
    Or this:
    Moreover, it was decided to equip the bomb with a special TSA kit (Tail SubAssembly), designed to convert conventional free-falling non-nuclear bombs into actually controlled munitions with increased range and accuracy of use (the generic designation Joint Direct Attack Munition is assigned to the data family of aviation weapons).
    It would be worth adding that for the correction of the bomb it is planned to use the satellite positioning system JPS whose operability in wartime raises great doubts.
    The deployment of modernized B61-12 bombs in Europe will seriously worsen the situation and create new threats, in particular for Russia's national security.
    It will worsen if we sit idly by, but we shouldn't discount the Russian tactical nuclear weapons. Even now we have something to answer. At least in this area, we surpass the capabilities of the United States, it is strange that the author does not mention this. request
    1. whiteeagle
      whiteeagle 11 October 2015 10: 28 New
      +1
      F-16А / В and fighter-bombers "Tornado" will be written off due to wear and tear, but Polish F16s and soon Romanian can replace German and Belgian aircraft. On the other hand, there will be more and more F35s in Europe every year. These aircraft can carry B61 bombs.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 11 October 2015 11: 07 New
        -1
        Given the development of modern air defense systems, these bombs are already useless - they need to be delivered to the target, and how to do this taking into account the range of anti-aircraft missile launchers a few hundred kilometers from the object to be hit, most likely in the future all these bombs will be replaced by missiles JASSAM with a nuclear warhead.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 11 October 2015 13: 00 New
          +2
          Quote: Vadim237
          Given the development of modern air defense systems, these bombs are already useless - they need to be delivered to the target, and how to do this taking into account the range of carrier destruction by anti-aircraft missiles several hundred kilometers

          This is not entirely true. No. Modern nuclear bombs with variable charge power - this is a versatile and highly flexible weapon in use. In addition, do not overestimate the capabilities of our air defense. Only Moscow and St. Petersburg are adequately covered.
          1. Tektor
            Tektor 11 October 2015 13: 23 New
            0
            Do I understand correctly that the destruction of the runways of the bases where the bombs are stored, nullifies their presence? Or any other action that prevents the take-off of bombers? For example, scattering on take-off of hedgehog nails. Can these bombers rise from the ground?
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 11 October 2015 13: 32 New
              +2
              Quote: Tektor
              Do I understand correctly that the destruction of the runways of the bases where the bombs are stored, nullifies their presence?

              Yes, right, there are even special ammunition for the destruction of the runway.
              Another question is that at any large air base where jet combat aircraft are based, there is special equipment and units for the quick repair of the strip.
              Quote: Tektor
              Can these bombers rise from the ground?

              No, only with a solid runway.
              1. opus
                opus 13 October 2015 02: 00 New
                +2
                Quote: Bongo
                No, only with a solid runway.


                Panavia Tornado - Chassis Designed for use with unpaved runways

                + AEDSU + variable sweep wing + high wing mechanization

                + swamps they do not have ours


                The special design of traction reversers allows Tornado to perform short runway landing


                Quote: Tektor
                Can these bombers rise from the ground?

                Tornado - the world's first production aircraft with an analogue electric remote control SU ... with a variable sweep wing - with the ability to short take-off and landing
                All autobahns do not crumble

                + Built-in monitoring system, which facilitates its maintenance and field inspection of equipment.
                ======================
                There are VERY many civil airports in Europe.
            2. Kalmar
              Kalmar 11 October 2015 22: 31 New
              0
              Do I understand correctly that the destruction of the runways of the bases where the bombs are stored, nullifies their presence?

              It is not that simple. If these bombs are planned to be used for the first strike (to which we will respond), then the destruction of the runway does not give anything: it makes no sense to destroy something in return if the bombers are already in the air.
        2. Talgat
          Talgat 11 October 2015 13: 49 New
          0
          Quote: Vadim237
          Given the development of modern air defense systems, these bombs are already useless - they need to be delivered to the target, and how to do this taking into account the range of anti-aircraft missile launchers a few hundred kilometers from the object to be hit, most likely in the future all these bombs will be replaced by missiles JASSAM with a nuclear warhead.


          Yes, I agree, fighter bombers can be shot down by Russian air defense, but so far there is no 100% of the air defense border crossing, low-level aircraft still have a chance to deliver nuclear weapons to targets in Russia

          Cruise missiles and submarine ballistic missiles will, of course, carry out the bulk of the "quick strike". If only the Western "hawks" would be smart enough to refrain. The sad experience of Napoleons Hitlers Karlov and so on does not teach them anything

          In the future, the density of Russian air defense will also increase - and in the west, bombs will be replaced with missiles
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 11 October 2015 22: 39 New
            +1
            Yes, I agree, fighter bombers can be shot down by Russian air defense

            Do not forget that they will be accompanied by anti-radar planes and EW aircraft, so the air defense forces will face very difficult work. In this light, it was a very bad idea to transfer the main headquarters of the Russian Navy to St. Petersburg, to which NATO aviation reaches 15-20 minutes from its nearest bases. By the way, has he been transferred back or not yet?

            Cruise missiles and submarine ballistic missiles will, of course, carry out the bulk of the "quick strike".

            Winged ones are not suitable for a "fast" one - they are too slow, they fly to the target for 2-3 hours versus 10-20 minutes for ICBMs. CD, I believe, will become the second wave, which will fall on secondary targets (power plants, transport hubs, etc.).
        3. opus
          opus 13 October 2015 13: 42 New
          0
          Striking "depth" of thought №327
          Quote: Vadim237
          Given the development of modern air defense systems, these bombs will already

          B61-12: dual-use as an element of strategic offensive weapons when delivered by heavy bombers (76x V-52N, 19x V-2, 83x V-1V) and non-strategic nuclear weapons when delivered by practically ANY tactical aircraft (218xF-15E, 172xF -22,119x F / A-18A, 22x F / A-18V, 352 xF / A-18C, 135 xF / A-18D, 195 xF / A-18E, 239x F / A-18F = I won’t even pick one they can carry B61, XX xF-35).
          + all fighter-bombers of the Belgian, Dutch, Italian, German and Turkish Air Force (Tornadoh xXX, Eurofighter xxx, F-16C / DxxX).
          In total we have SAM-? state secrets, but an order of magnitude smaller than the B-61 carriers, taking into account 2 missiles per 1 CC, says nothing
          TOTAL NATO aircraft, capable of carrying B61-12 under 1200 units (enough bombs)

          A total of 3155 bombs of the B61 family were issued, and the total stock of bombs located in the arsenal of the US Armed Forces, including those stored in NATO European countries valued next to 1925 units, including those in storage.

          hang TSA (Tail SubAssembly) and forth

          Quote: Vadim237
          and how to do it taking into account the range of destruction of carriers by anti-aircraft missiles a few hundred kilometers

          as well as in Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia.
          high-precision, but EXPENSIVE missile weapons suppresses air defense systems, radar systems and the entire country's air defense system, while aviation using cheap air bombs destroys the country's infrastructure and destroys the country's armed forces.
          Quote: Vadim237
          most likely in the future all these bombs will be replaced by JASSAM missiles with a nuclear warhead.

          Yes Yes

          2013: 440 AGM-158 JASSM cruise missiles, the deal amounted to $ 449 million.
          and it’s not ER (it is 40% more expensive)
          seems to be cheap?
          Current trouble: on JASSM not provided for bcc.

          only unitary penetrating warhead WDU-42 / B (J-1000) - penetrating, 435-450 kg, with 109 kg of explosives on the AFX-757

          and not a single nuclear warhead (except for the W-80-0 (1)) from the US arsenal will "fit" on the JASSM, not to mention the guidance and detonation system
          W80-0 and W80-1 are busy.
          But the USA simply does not have other fissile material. As well as the capacities for its development

          Length - 2,5m, diameter - 370mm

          B-61 is the oldest US nuclear weapons in service and nuclear weapons with the longest production duration
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 13 October 2015 13: 56 New
            +2
            Anton, welcome! Here you of course "went too far" wassat
            Quote: opus
            In total we have SAM-? state secrets, but an order of magnitude smaller than B-61 carriers

            I'm sorry, but an order of magnitude this is 10 times. The number of Zrd in VKS is known, if you count with those connected from the East Kazakhstan region - this is an offhand - 120. What SAMs and SAMs are armed and the structure is also not a secret. Of course, some of the main missiles are at the stage of reorganization and rearmament, in many lack of equipment, but you can roughly calculate.
            1. opus
              opus 13 October 2015 14: 14 New
              +1
              Quote: Bongo
              Anton, welcome! Here you of course "went too far

              Sergei ... I’m off the hook. "For a catchphrase, of course."
              Do you consider ALL missiles (city defense: Moscow, St. Petersburg, naval bases, air force, nuclear power plants, strategic missile defense cover)
              You count those that can cover the tactical groups of the RF Armed Forces.

              Okay . out of order. But at times for sure.
              moreover, air defense systems can move along the theater of operations with a maximum speed of 40 km / h, and the carrier along the front of the theater of operations with a speed of 800 km / h

              A trifle like arrows I do not take.
              SAM is very expensive and disposable.
              Quote: Bongo
              but you can roughly calculate.

              Well, laziness was.
              It is very difficult to search
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 13 October 2015 14: 21 New
                +1
                Quote: opus
                Well, laziness was.

                I thought not so long ago, though I had a typo there, of course, not 10 zrdn ZRS S-400, but 20 (10 regiments).

                http://topwar.ru/70364-sovremennoe-sostoyanie-sistemy-pvo-rossii.html
                1. opus
                  opus 13 October 2015 14: 41 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Bongo
                  Of course, not 10 zrdn SAMs S-400, but 20 (10 regiments).

                  You in the article, on the maps, perfectly showed where the SAMs are deployed.
                  No one will fly with B61 to hit Moscow or Irkutsk.
                  This is the case of the CBRC and ICBMs.
                  but for the troops on the theater of war
                  1. Bongo
                    Bongo 13 October 2015 14: 44 New
                    +1
                    Quote: opus
                    You in the article, on the maps, perfectly showed where the SAMs are deployed.
                    No one will fly with B61 to hit Moscow or Irkutsk.
                    This is the case of the CBRC and ICBMs.
                    but for the troops on the theater of war

                    B-52Н and В-2 strategists can use nuclear bombs for finishing and stripping. For the rest, I agree with you B61 - this is basically a tactical nuclear weapon. yes
  2. GYGOLA
    GYGOLA 11 October 2015 11: 26 New
    -1
    We urgently need to "donate" several thousand of these bombs to friendly countries, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, closer to the United States, with a dozen aircraft, or place them on a permanent base. And North Korea too. And wish Good Nights to ours. " friendly " bully to western partners !!!
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 11 October 2015 12: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: GYGOLA
      We urgently need to "donate" several thousand such bombs to friendly countries

      Have you heard about the "Cuban missile crisis"?
      1. GYGOLA
        GYGOLA 11 October 2015 17: 05 New
        0
        It is about 2015.
        Have you heard about the "Cuban missile crisis"?
        I heard. One cubic meter is not enough. Or are you afraid of repeating 62 years?
      2. LvKiller
        LvKiller 11 October 2015 19: 27 New
        0
        Almost everything has changed since 1962. First and foremost: the Western elite has not just decomposed, it has completely decayed. Well, they don’t roll on those from 1962 on any of the parameters.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 11 October 2015 22: 43 New
      +1
      It is urgent to "donate" several thousand of these bombs to friendly countries, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina

      The problem is that the friendliness of these countries towards the Russian Federation is very conditional and situational. For example, Venezuela is quite dependent economically on the United States, and I am generally silent about Mexico. So these "friendly" countries, most likely, simply will not agree to the deployment of such weapons. And even if they do, it is not a fact that they will decide to use it at the "Heh" hour. It is much more likely that these gifts will simply flow into the hands of our Western partners in order to get acquainted with the latest achievements of Russian peaceful nuclear scientists.
  3. DarkMatter
    DarkMatter 11 October 2015 12: 07 New
    0
    Moreover, it was decided to equip the bomb with a special TSA kit (Tail SubAssembly), designed to convert conventional free-falling non-nuclear bombs into actually guided munitions with increased range and accuracy.
    ... and gives the bomb one more peculiarity: it can be dropped from an aircraft at a greater distance from the target, without entering the enemy’s anti-aircraft defense zone.


    Although there is nothing new in the article, by and large, this moment every time causes unpleasant sensations.
    By the way, how are things with nuclear bombs? or only rockets left? what
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 11 October 2015 12: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: DarkMatter
      Although there is nothing new in the article, by and large, this moment every time causes unpleasant sensations.
      By the way, how are things with nuclear bombs? or only rockets left?

      We are doing fine. There are about 500 free-fall nuclear bombs and aircraft missiles for Tu-22M3 and Su-24M and M2 bombers. Currently, the Russian tactical nuclear potential is estimated at about 2000 warheads, and according to the same expert estimates, there are about 500 TNW units in the US armed forces. That is, we surpass the United States in this area by about 4 times. True, an allowance should be made for the fact that some of our tactical charges are of "defensive nature", i.e. designed for anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles.
      1. DarkMatter
        DarkMatter 11 October 2015 13: 19 New
        +1
        Yes, thanks for the answer. That’s why I want to clarify precisely about bombs, because the general numbers are often misleading (state, actual quantity, outdated ammunition, other types of ala missiles, anti-missiles, etc.). Apparently, if you remove all the excess approximate equality and succeed, it remains to understand in what condition and what are the capabilities of our bombs.
        Likely to adapt bombs from Su-24 to Su-34 there will be (I hope) some improvements as well, necessary and sufficient, although certainly not so costly, then there is no money repeat
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 11 October 2015 13: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: DarkMatter
          Yes, thanks for the answer.

          You are welcome! hi
          Quote: DarkMatter
          That’s why I want to clarify precisely about the bombs, because the general numbers are often misleading (state, actual quantity, outdated ammunition, other types of ala missiles, anti-missiles, etc.).

          No one will give you accurate data on this topic, the one who is even a little "in the subject" is silent, because you can pay with your head. It is currently one of the most "closed" areas in terms of our security. Look for yourself, hammer into the search engine - "Russian tactical nuclear weapons".
          Quote: DarkMatter
          Apparently, if you remove all the excess approximate equality and succeed, it remains to understand in what condition and what are the capabilities of our bombs.

          In addition to tactical nuclear bombs, we also have ground-based OTR "Tochka" and "Iskander" - which the "partners" do not have. Nuclear weapons are being improved in all countries where they are available. Only here they don't traditionally talk about it. I do not think that we are lagging behind here, and in terms of financing, this topic is certainly a priority.
          1. DarkMatter
            DarkMatter 11 October 2015 14: 20 New
            +1
            No one will give you accurate data on this topic, the one who is even a little "in the subject" is silent, because you can pay with your head. This is currently one of the most "closed" areas in terms of our security.

            Certainly smile accurate data are not needed, purely to compare the overall picture.
            And about the most closed spheres, sometimes this, in my opinion, strange attitude is surprising, on some issues almost every bolt and nut can be read and viewed in the public domain, but they will never say anything about something, and it is not always justified "opening" information on one topic, but on seemingly much less important information is "closed" request
            Again, this refers to bombs, about the "closeness" of the X-32 or the X-102 there are no questions, although there is still some information on them.

            In addition to tactical nuclear bombs, we also have ground-based OTR "Tochka" and "Iskander" - which the "partners" do not have. Nuclear weapons are being improved in all countries where they are available. Only here they don't traditionally talk about it. I do not think that we are lagging behind here, and in terms of financing, this topic is certainly a priority.

            There are yes
            I hope that we are not far behind, simply according to the list: mace, yars, line, Sarmat, barguzin, the same air missiles, possibly new for PAK YES, hypersonic ... didn’t forget anything? And I’m afraid of bombs somewhere somewhere on the last, so I remembered about the money, they may well not pay attention as the least effective what
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 11 October 2015 14: 34 New
              +1
              Quote: DarkMatter
              Again, this refers to bombs, about the "closeness" of the X-32 or the X-102 there are no questions, although there is still some information on them.

              These aircraft missiles are not yet serial products. At least in large quantities, they did not enter the armament. As for the X-32, I generally have big doubts. that this topic will be brought. request
              Quote: DarkMatter
              And the bombs are afraid of a place somewhere in the last

              You are mistaken, work in this area is certainly underway. But I repeat once again, everything that concerns our TNW is an extremely "closed" area.
              1. DarkMatter
                DarkMatter 11 October 2015 14: 58 New
                0
                These aircraft missiles are not yet serial products. At least in large quantities, they did not enter the armament. As for the X-32, I generally have big doubts. that this topic will be brought. request

                I know, but the money is spent on it what
                It’s a pity if they don’t bring it. What carcasses will fly with, although this is a completely different story ...
                You are mistaken, work in this area is certainly underway. But I repeat once again, everything that concerns our TNW is an extremely "closed" area.

                Alright, alright, you reassured me wink
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 11 October 2015 14: 21 New
        +1
        The United States still has several hundred B83 bombs in its arsenal and more than one thousand nuclear charges in storage, most likely these charges will be put on hypersonic missiles and aeroballistic guided bombs in the future.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 11 October 2015 14: 27 New
          +1
          Quote: Vadim237
          The United States still has several hundred B83 bombs in its arsenal and more than one thousand nuclear charges in storage, most likely these charges will be put on hypersonic missiles and aeroballistic guided bombs in the future.


          B83 megaton nuclear bombs are deployed on strategic delivery vehicles B-52H and B-2. B61-12 is positioned as a "tactical" nuclear weapon.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 11 October 2015 18: 07 New
            0
            In principle, nothing prevents B83 from being located in eastern Europe, and the carrier will be F 15E.
          2. opus
            opus 13 October 2015 14: 30 New
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            B83 megaton-class nuclear bombs are placed on strategic carriers V-52N and V-2.

            variable power, ranging from less than 1Kt to 1,2Mt
            Variable-power thermonuclear charge in the warhead from 90 to 120 cm long.

            up to 10kT - tactical ammunition, over stratgic.

            not only on "strategic":
            F-15E
            F-16
            F / A-18A
            same carriers.

            and B-52, B-2 and B-1 were also used for tactical bombing attacks (Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan)
            Quote: Bongo
            B61-12 is positioned as a "tactical" nuclear weapon.

            dual purpose

            Features of individual models currently in stockpile:

            Mod 3: Tactical bomb with 4 yield options - 0.3 Kt, 1.5 Kt, 60 Kt, and 170 Kt. This is the highest yield tactical bomb mod. Along with the mod 4, this was the first mod developed using PBX-9502 IHE, and the first to be equipped with a microprocessor based arming and firing system (in 1980).
            Mod 4: Tactical bomb with 4 yield options - 0.3 Kt, 1.5 Kt, 10 Kt, and 45 Kt.
            Mod 7: Strategic bomb with multiple yield options - lowest is 10 Kt, highest is 300 Kt. This is a converted Mod 1 bomb. The conversion replaced the earlier PBX-9404 HE with PBX-9502 IHE. It has the highest yield of any B61 family weapon (including other warhead derivatives, like the W-80).
            Mod 10: Tactical bomb with 4 yield options - 0.3 Kt, 5 Kt, 10 Kt, and 80 Kt. Converted W-85 Pershing II missile warhead.
            Mod 11: Tactical or strategic bomb with multiple yield options presumably ranging from 10 Kt (and possibly lower yields) to 340 Kt. This is a modified Mod 7 with a one-piece case hardened steel center case, and a new nose piece and rear subassembly to provide ground penetration capability for defeating buried targets ("bunker busting"). The parachute assembly has also been removed, and new aerodynamic fins added for high-velocity, accurate delivery. The B61-11 buries itself 3-6 meters underground before detonation, transfering a much higher proportion of the explosion energy to ground shock, compared to surface bursts. The actual warhead itself is identical to the Mod 7. This is the first new model of a US warhead to go into service since warhead production was suspended in 1989. It is being produced by field modification of existing Mod 7s.

            Media
            B-52
            B-1
            B-2B
            F-15E
            F-16
            F / A-18
            A-6
            AV-8A
            Tornado (NATO)
      3. opus
        opus 13 October 2015 14: 20 New
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        True, an allowance should be made for the fact that some of our tactical charges are of "defensive nature", i.e. designed for anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles.

        I think they are already gone.
        in any case, in the indices of the GRAU of the RF Ministry of Defense 9N ... there is no SBN

        9N11 - warhead missile 3M8
        9N12 - warhead missile 3M9M
        9N14F - high-explosive fragmentation warhead ZUR 9M31
        9N15 - high-explosive fragmentation warhead missile launcher 9M32
        9N15M - high-explosive fragmentation warhead ZUR 9M32M

        Aless, but it’s not SBN, SBN only on OTR and TR

        9N32M - special warhead with a charge of AA-52 for TR 9M21
        9N33 - special warhead OTR 8K14 with a charge of RA17
        9N33-1 - version with charge PA104, PA104-1, PA104-2
        9N33-1U - special warhead OTR 8K14 (training)
        9N33U - special warhead OTR 8K14 (training)
        9N33UT - special warhead OTR 8K14 (training)
        9N36 - special warhead with charge AA-38 for TR 9M21
        9N38M - special warhead TR 9M21M with a charge of AA-38
        9N39 - special warhead TR 9M21 with a charge of AA-60
        9N39 - special warhead TR 9M79B with a charge of AA-60
        ....
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. alekSASHKA-36
    alekSASHKA-36 11 October 2015 14: 49 New
    +1
    - a ground nuclear explosion subject to bombing from a height of not more than 50 feet (about 15,24 m). Really?
    1. ICT
      ICT 11 October 2015 16: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: alekSASHKA-36
      (about 15,24 m).


      well, it looks like there is some kind of moderator in addition to structural strength, and it’s still not clear what kind of hypothetical goal we have to go over,
      a little higher than the video and bombed?


    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 11 October 2015 22: 46 New
      +2
      - a ground nuclear explosion subject to bombing from a height of not more than 50 feet (about 15,24 m). Really?

      There is a suspicion that just a toe one is lost. There are not so many places on a European theater of operations where a fighter can safely fly at an altitude of 15m, here more likely a bomb carrier together with bombs will stick into the target.
  6. Old26
    Old26 11 October 2015 19: 05 New
    0
    Quote: GYGOLA
    We urgently need to "donate" several thousand similar bombs to friendly countries, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Ar
  7. Old26
    Old26 11 October 2015 19: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: Bongo
    In addition to tactical nuclear bombs, we also have ground-based OTR "Tochka" and "Iskander" - which the "partners" do not have

    The "partners" have about 7000 sea-based KR. There are a large number of nuclear weapons carriers. So everything is not so simple here. We have more charges, but they surpass us in carriers ...

    Quote: Vadim237
    In principle, nothing prevents B83 from being located in eastern Europe, and the carrier will be F 15E.

    Technically, yes. The bomb weighs a little more than a ton.
    1. LvKiller
      LvKiller 11 October 2015 19: 31 New
      +1
      There is no need to idealize the CD of "respected partners", especially sea-based ones. By themselves, this weapon will not come to us. But how many of them will go to the bottom with the loss of one side, is that an interesting question?
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 11 October 2015 22: 51 New
      +1
      The "partners" have about 7000 sea-based KR.

      Are we talking about Tomahawks? As far as I understand, 7000 is the total number of missiles of this brand launched to date. Some have already been written off, spent, sold. In reality, there are probably 3-4 thousand of them deployed in the fleet, no more. The overwhelming majority are non-nuclear.
  8. Old26
    Old26 11 October 2015 19: 26 New
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    In addition to tactical nuclear bombs, we also have ground-based OTR "Tochka" and "Iskander" - which the "partners" do not have

    The "partners" have about 7000 sea-based KR. There are a large number of nuclear weapons carriers. So everything is not so simple here. We have more charges, but they surpass us in carriers ...

    Quote: Vadim237
    In principle, nothing prevents B83 from being located in eastern Europe, and the carrier will be F 15E.

    Technically, yes. The bomb weighs a little more than a ton.
  9. Old26
    Old26 11 October 2015 21: 18 New
    +1
    Quote: LvKiller
    There is no need to idealize the CD of "respected partners", especially sea-based ones. By themselves, this weapon will not come to us. But how many of them will go to the bottom with the loss of one side, is that an interesting question?

    They have almost 4 dozen submarines with cruise missiles, and the number on boats is in the region of 12. Of these, 4 Ohio ships with one and a half missiles, 6 dozen destroyers, 2 dozen cruisers. And this is a lot. But the second side of this question, how many ships we will have in the future with a KR type "Caliber". In percentage terms, the loss of even one ship will be more tangible for us than for them ... Of course, no weapon should be idealized, neither the American Tomahawks, nor our Calibers, nor the Iskander. Each weapon has its own pros and cons ...
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 11 October 2015 22: 54 New
      0
      Of these, 4 "Ohio" with one and a half rockets sleepers

      As far as I know, a complete set of missiles is usually not put on it. As a rule, it carries about half as much.

      But the second side of this question, how many ships we will have in the future with a KR type "Caliber".

      Few (compared to the US). Therefore, in the current military doctrine, it is assumed not to drink from small dishes: to immediately plant on the supporter with ICBMs. The "calibers" will already be on the dance floor.
  10. Old26
    Old26 12 October 2015 00: 03 New
    0
    Quote: Kalmar
    As far as I know, a complete set of missiles is usually not put on it. As a rule, it carries about half as much.

    How much is on it now - HZ. It is known that under the Kyrgyz Republic 20 mines are occupied. How many are in the mine now and how many in the threatened period - no one will say. This is similar to the American destroyers. You can put 8 CR, and you can 70.

    Quote: Kalmar
    Few (compared to the US). Therefore, in the current military doctrine, it is assumed not to drink from small dishes: to immediately plant on the supporter with ICBMs. The "calibers" will already be on the dance floor.

    Immediately planting ICBMs is a path to nowhere. The conflict can develop in different ways. Start with the same non-nuclear. And this is where the difference in media becomes fundamental. In any case, NONE of our surface ships, be it MRK or 11356, carry more than 8 cruise missiles. And if in the Caspian the VPU can be "loaded" with missiles of the 3M14 type, then in other theaters of operation, ships will have to install mostly anti-ship missiles. Even if half is 3M54 and half is 3M13, then there will be 4 such long-range ammunition units. There are two of them on the submarine of project 636.3. 2 anti-ship missiles and 2 SLCMs BD. When are they still modernizing nuclear missiles for these missiles - KhZ.

    As for the American bombs and their certain "worthlessness" (as some say here), since they say the planes will be shot down by our air defense - unfortunately this is not the case.
    Firstly, such media will go undercover.
    Secondly, I do not think that the saturation of air defense is such that it is possible to bring down all targets. Given the fact that they have more aviation. Yes, and the bombs will be used selectively enough, for resistance nodes, cities, infrastructure, where it is expensive and disadvantageous to use missile warheads
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 12 October 2015 09: 12 New
      0
      How much is on it now - HZ. It is known that under the Kyrgyz Republic 20 mines are occupied.

      As far as I remember, it has 22 mines for the payload. But half of them are usually occupied by the landing force and their equipment. In a threatened period - yes, they can score rockets to the eyeballs, although in the presence of several dozen "Berks" and "Tikanderog" this will have little effect on the overall result.

      Immediately planting ICBMs is the road to nowhere. Conflict can develop in various ways. Start with the same non-nuclear

      The whole difficulty is that in conventional weapons we are VERY far behind the United States. And we almost do not have these very conventional weapons that can be used to hit targets in the United States. So it turns out that the full-scale non-nuclear conflict for us will end either in defeat or in the transition to the nuclear phase with ICBMs and other apocalyptic joys.

      In general, I agree that the exchange of ICBMs is already an unambiguous paragraph to everything. But at the moment, only the threat of their use can provide at least conditional parity with the enemy.
  11. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 12 October 2015 07: 50 New
    0
    Our answer is Gauge with NWF and Iskander missiles with NWF. This ensures accuracy and JBF. And the range, as I understand it, is not known ...!
  12. Old26
    Old26 12 October 2015 10: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: Kalmar
    As far as I remember, 22 mines are allocated for the payload. But half of them are usually occupied by the landing party and their equipment.

    I can’t say with accuracy, but exactly two unused mines are assigned to the landing. But since the means of landing, mounted on the deck, are used, these funds overlap another 2 mines. That is, purely technically only 20

    Quote: Kalmar
    The whole difficulty is that in conventional weapons we are VERY far behind the United States. And we almost do not have these very conventional weapons that can be used to hit targets in the United States. So it turns out that the full-scale non-nuclear conflict for us will end either in defeat or in the transition to the nuclear phase with ICBMs and other apocalyptic joys.

    Quite right. And only the presence of strategic nuclear forces prevents such a conflict from developing. We always stop "on the brink"

    Quote: Zaurbek
    Our answer is Gauge with NWF and Iskander missiles with NWF. This ensures accuracy and JBF. And the range, as I understand it, is not known ...!

    My comrade and I discussed this aspect a little higher. The number of such weapon systems is extremely small. On boats "Caliber" will be in such a scanty amount that one US company will have a CD 6 times more than ours. Moreover, there is only one such nuclear submarine, the maximum will be 6 in the coming years. Plus 3-4 nuclear submarines. They have a lot more of them. It's the same with surface ships.
    Well, and the Iskanders - we can deploy the maximum number of them - a hundred and a half across the country. And range restrictions
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 12 October 2015 11: 48 New
      0
      I can’t say with accuracy, but exactly two unused mines are assigned to the landing. But since the means of landing, mounted on the deck, are used, these funds overlap another 2 mines. That is, purely technically only 20

      According to Wikipedia and a couple of other sources that I once read, those two shafts are simply converted into airlock chambers for the landing. The rest of the mines can be loaded with either rockets or troops with equipment. In the extreme case, if you do not take a landing at all, you get 22 silos with 7 missiles in each - a total of 154. We, of course, have no ships with such ammunition yet.
  13. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 12 October 2015 20: 21 New
    0
    What's true is true. We must do and do. First it will saturate with YaBCH and then with the usual one. We have a "wagon" of conventional tactical nuclear weapons, in which we are ahead of the United States. You can think of body kits for accurate guidance. In general, there is a lot of scope for creativity.