Military Review

US intends to extend the shelf life of combat missiles

68
Center aviation and US Army Missile Research (AMRDEC) has announced its intention to extend the shelf life of missiles currently in storage, reports Look with reference to the resource "N + 1".


US intends to extend the shelf life of combat missiles


“Within the program, the military intends to determine whether it is possible to use rockets for which the storage period set by the manufacturer has already expired,” the publication says.

The first studies have already begun. "They are carried out in several stages: the military are checking electronic components, engines, hulls and warheads of rockets, trying to determine whether long-term storage has affected their proper functioning," the newspaper writes. In addition, missile control launches are conducted.

The data obtained will allow to determine the actual shelf life of missiles, which, as a rule, is much larger than that established by the manufacturer. Selective studies will be used to calculate the shelf life of the entire arsenal of this type of ammunition.

Previously, such a study has already been conducted for individual types of missiles. As a result, the shelf life was extended from an average of 7,9 to 22,6.

“Manufacturers, as a rule, establish a warranty period of storage, during which they are responsible for the quality of ammunition. Many countries around the world are conducting research aimed at extending the shelf life of ammunition, but after the warranty period has expired, manufacturers are no longer responsible for the performance of their products, ”the newspaper notes.

A Minuteman III ICBM is currently being tested, the production of which was discontinued at 1978. Another launch of one of these missiles was conducted on Wednesday.

“A ballistic missile without a combat charge launched from Vandenberg Air Base in California. The rocket flew 6,76 thousands of kilometers and hit a training target on the Kwajalein Atoll in the west of the Marshall Islands, "- said in a statement the command of the global attack forces of the US Air Force.

In total, the US Armed Forces are armed with 450 missiles of this class. They are able to hit targets at a distance of 12 thousand. Km.
Photos used:
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/
68 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimyrych
    Vladimyrych 22 October 2015 09: 50 New
    15
    Then we extended the terms indefinitely now and the mattress with their unmeasured budget did the same. Something strange is happening comrades laughing
    The Fed cut off electricity from a printing press for non-payment laughing

    1. oleg-gr
      oleg-gr 22 October 2015 09: 58 New
      +3
      Let extend. Such saving them is to our advantage.
      1. theadenter
        theadenter 22 October 2015 10: 04 New
        +3
        But what's the use? Neither benefit nor harm.
        Missiles fly so far - no replacement money has been sawn.
        There’s nothing to be glad about.
      2. Kostyar
        Kostyar 22 October 2015 10: 05 New
        0
        Let them prolong it, maybe they have them later, at the start they fucking ...?!
        1. Vladimir 1964
          Vladimir 1964 22 October 2015 14: 35 New
          0
          Quote: Bone
          Let them prolong it, maybe they have them later, at the start they fucking ...?!


          Konstantin, our situation is almost the same, so there is nothing to gloat about.
          Something like this, Dear. hi
      3. am808s
        am808s 22 October 2015 10: 27 New
        -2
        Why renew? Little green wrappers? Let them build a faster printing machine will fall apart.
    2. Vend
      Vend 22 October 2015 10: 00 New
      +4
      Quote: Vladimir
      Then we extended the terms indefinitely now and the mattress with their unmeasured budget did the same. Something strange is happening comrades laughing
      The Fed cut off electricity from a printing press for non-payment laughing

      Not really good news. On the one hand, this is an indicator of US financial problems. And on the other hand, missiles are not the kind of weapon that needs to be treated in this way. Well, if they are torn in the United States due to deterioration, it will be a problem for the United States and its neighboring countries. And if this happens in another country? With Europe for example. The USA is famous for fusing old weapons to its satellites. Not a good idea. Then the mattress covers would have completely abandoned rocket weapons.
      1. theadenter
        theadenter 22 October 2015 10: 08 New
        0
        I doubt that it will "explode." Pollution - yes, it can be decent. And if it gets into groundwater, it will be worse than an explosion.
        1. MIKHAN
          MIKHAN 22 October 2015 10: 12 New
          +4
          The US is starting to save ... The trend is interesting!
          1. theadenter
            theadenter 22 October 2015 10: 14 New
            0
            And here you can’t argue!
        2. evge-malyshev
          evge-malyshev 22 October 2015 10: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: theadenter
          Pollution - yes, it can be decent


          Do not worry. She is a solid fuel.
          1. umah
            umah 22 October 2015 11: 12 New
            0
            Do not worry. She is a solid fuel.

            If the fuel is solid, this does not mean that nothing will happen to it in 100 years. Modern solid fuel is a rather capricious thing. Constantly observe temperature and humidity, otherwise it may not fly. Or decompose into components or something else happens. This is not a briquette with inert powder, and powder should be protected from moisture.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Mera joota
              Mera joota 22 October 2015 12: 10 New
              0
              Quote: umah
              If the fuel is solid, this does not mean that nothing will happen to it in 100 years.

              So there is not a hundred years there, even 50 is not.
              Quote: umah
              Modern solid fuel is a rather capricious thing.

              You are confused with liquid fuel, yes, the problems you listed are present, it degrades faster than solid fuel.
              Quote: umah
              moisture must be protected.

              It is flooded and there is no access to atmospheric moisture. The temperature in the mine is maintained ...
              1. umah
                umah 22 October 2015 14: 33 New
                +1
                About 100 years it was sarcasm. Look at the photo PGRK Poplar or Yars. A healthy square contraption hangs on the side of the launch container - it is an air conditioning radiator. If everything was so simple, then this system would not be needed. I agree that solid fuel rockets are cheaper to service, but not at times, but at a percentage. If we are talking about mine-based, then fuel and oxidizer can be poured into a liquid rocket before launch, which means that in dry form this rocket has a longer service life than solid fuel (in which the fuel does not change). In addition, liquid fuel has much higher energy and, with the same size, flies further / throws more.
      2. veksha50
        veksha50 22 October 2015 10: 47 New
        0
        Quote: Wend
        And on the other hand, missiles are not the kind of weapon that needs to be treated in this way.



        Um ... You still don’t know how many times and for how many years the service life was extended (both in the silos and in the storage) of the Voivode-Satan ...

        An inspection, with a control launch of one missile from the examined series and further (if possible) extension is a normal phenomenon ...

        So, by and large, this review article is actually about nothing ... No sensation, no explosion threats at the time of launch (this threat may also be present in new products, right ??? Marshal Krylov and many more people died (if) at the launch of a non-obsolete, and not a super-modern rocket ...
        1. WUA 518
          WUA 518 22 October 2015 10: 57 New
          +1
          Quote: veksha50
          Marshal Krylov

          Maybe Marshal Nedelin?
          1. belij
            belij 22 October 2015 11: 15 New
            +1
            And then tested the latest R-16 ICBM
          2. veksha50
            veksha50 22 October 2015 11: 22 New
            +2
            Quote: WUA 518
            Maybe Marshal Nedelin?



            It's to blame ... Sclerosis takes its own ... Krylov died, and Biryuzov died in a plane crash ... But something struck me in the head - Krylov, on the machine and dialed ...

            But the essence that I wrote about does not change ... Extending the life of missiles is quite normal, and both the latest experimental and the most reliable missile in terms of performance can take off at the start ...
            1. WUA 518
              WUA 518 22 October 2015 11: 39 New
              +2
              Quote: veksha50
              Guilty ...

              Yes, no problem, it happens.
              Quote: veksha50
              Extending the life of missiles is quite normal
              October 21, 201518: 15 (updated at 00:22)
              The United States tested the Minuteman III intercontinental missile. The USA once again tested the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile. She flew 6,76 thousand kilometers from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to her target on the Kwajalein Atoll in the west of the Marshall Islands and successfully hit her. Http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html? Id = 2677963
              1. veksha50
                veksha50 22 October 2015 12: 36 New
                0
                Quote: WUA 518
                She flew 6,76 thousand kilometers from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to a target on the Kwajalein Atoll in the west of the Marshall Islands and successfully hit her



                Well, our Voivode also sometimes shoot, and still fly at a given range (Kamchatka-Klyuchi) and hit targets ... Soviet still product ... So with proper storage they live a long time ...
    3. avdkrd
      avdkrd 22 October 2015 11: 51 New
      +1
      it’s not even the machine, but the loss of technology. The same thing awaits us if the privatization policy continues. Americans relaxed and did not work on new media, nobody kept the old equipment and specialists, now we have to start from scratch.
    4. :SCYTHIAN:
      :SCYTHIAN: 22 October 2015 12: 33 New
      0
      Well, we extended it due to lack of finances, but the ovs (as it seems to me) have another problem: they scored on the ICBMs a very long time ago, and as a result lost both the base and the school for their development. (No wonder they fly into space on our engines)
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 22 October 2015 09: 52 New
    +1
    US Army Aviation and Missile Research Center (AMRDEC) announces intention to extend missile shelf life


    Obviously there is not enough money for the production of new missiles and the dollar machine is already overheating from the strain.

    I am more worried about missile tests on ABM EUROPE ... American destroyers in the northern latitudes of the ATLANTIC are testing their new interceptor missiles for our ballistic missiles .... we cannot give WASHINGTON the slightest hope that they will be able to repel our retaliatory nuclear strike on the territory of the United States.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 22 October 2015 09: 58 New
      -20
      Over the past 35 years, Americans have not developed
      not a single new ICBM. And Russia is a whole series.
      Nevertheless, Russia stubbornly accuses the States of aggressive
      plans against her. How so wink ?
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 22 October 2015 10: 01 New
        13
        Nevertheless, Russia stubbornly accuses the States of aggressive
        plans against her. How so wink?


        Here are those on !!!! .....

        Is it really not clear?
        At our borders (mind you, not at the borders of the USA) dozens of US military bases are concentrated ... what is this?

        NATO and US troops have already come close to our borders and insolently conduct military exercises with provocative names .... isn't this a disgrace.

        Imagine if we, in the Gulf of Mexico, begin full-scale exercises called GIFT from Uncle VOVA to ISIS bandits .... (how many people in WASHINGTON will run to the toilet or at best start throwing themselves out of the window of high-rises ... the Russians go with shouts)

        I'm not talking about the notorious missile defense system in Europe, supposedly creating to protect against the sun and the Persians .... and the West is still powdering our brains honestly hoping that we will take a word like fools.
      2. vorobey
        vorobey 22 October 2015 10: 03 New
        12
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Over the past 35 years, the Americans have not developed a single new ICBM. And Russia is a whole series. Nevertheless, Russia stubbornly accuses the States of aggressive plans against it. How so?


        The US bases went straight to the borders of Russia - you don’t notice this type ... Europe will get an answer ... and how can we reach the states ... so your post is either stupidity or a mistake ...
        1. inkass_98
          inkass_98 22 October 2015 10: 08 New
          +5
          Quote: vorobey
          and how do we reach the states.

          Yes, just as always planned, we have not yet come up with another way:
          1. vorobey
            vorobey 22 October 2015 10: 15 New
            +1
            Quote: inkass_98
            Yes, just as always planned,


            yes .. we have complexes, but we are not shy about them .. laughing
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 22 October 2015 10: 17 New
          -2
          "and how do we reach the states .." ///

          With the help of ICBMs, of course. They are new, with a quick start.
          like Yars, for example. start, in a smart way, from the depths of Russia.
          It is impossible to intercept. The destruction of the million city in the United States
          guaranteed.

          You will not seriously argue that a company of British soldiers
          in Estonia or 4 Abrams tanks in Lithuania scared Russia?
          1. dali
            dali 22 October 2015 10: 25 New
            +5
            Quote: voyaka uh
            You will not seriously argue that a company of British soldiers in Estonia or 4 Abrams tanks in Lithuania scared Russia?

            No need to juggle ... you know perfectly well that yars, etc. not because of a company of aglitsky "rembos" appeared ...
            1. vorobey
              vorobey 22 October 2015 10: 45 New
              +3
              Quote: Dali
              you know perfectly well that yars, etc. not because of a company of aglitsky "rembos" appeared ...


              That's right ... the United States is the only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons in armed conflict ... alas ... it affects the reputation .. so the answer must be ready .. and such that it is no longer disgraced ... with a kind word and a gun as they say ... repeat
          2. vorobey
            vorobey 22 October 2015 10: 27 New
            +6
            Quote: voyaka uh
            You will not seriously argue that a company of British soldiers in Estonia or 4 Abrams tanks in Lithuania scared Russia?


            and why then only 50 planes and 9 tanks in Syria so stirred America?
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 22 October 2015 10: 38 New
              +2
              Airplanes did not surprise or disturb.
              In addition to the safety of their aircraft, what
              Now, fortunately, the parties agreed.

              Ground forces of the USA and NATO countries are insignificant
              by quantity. Tanks and artillery - with a gulkin nose.
              The presence in the Baltic states is symbolic so that
              morally support the allies.
              It is clear that an invasion of Russia with such forces is impossible.
              Even for defense they are few.
              1. vorobey
                vorobey 22 October 2015 10: 50 New
                +2
                Quote: voyaka uh
                Airplanes did not surprise or disturb.


                what then stinks like that? fish?

                Quote: voyaka uh
                The ground forces of the USA and NATO countries are insignificant in numbers. Tanks and artillery - with a gulkin nose.


                Hitler’s tanks also had a gulkin nose ...

                Quote: voyaka uh
                The presence in the Baltic states is symbolic in order to morally support the allies.


                Allies usually zealously execute commands ... to tell how the Romanians fought with us and what they did ...


                Quote: voyaka uh
                It is clear that an invasion of Russia with such forces is impossible.


                not impossible but cherevato .. chop yourself on your nose at last ...
          3. Same lech
            Same lech 22 October 2015 10: 33 New
            +2
            You will not seriously argue that a company of British soldiers
            in Estonia or 4 Abrams tanks in Lithuania scared Russia?


            Where the company there may be a full-fledged NATO brigade .....

            or you don’t know that in the BALTIC the preparation of logistic support for NATO strike units is in full swing and Pentagon military experts regularly come there with inspections.
          4. Lt. Air Force stock
            Lt. Air Force stock 22 October 2015 10: 55 New
            +3
            Quote: voyaka uh
            With the help of ICBMs, of course. They are new, with a quick start.
            like Yars, for example. start, in a smart way, from the depths of Russia.
            It is impossible to intercept. The destruction of the million city in the United States
            guaranteed.

            And what prevents the United States from retaliating from submarines and ground mines of ballistic missiles? Do you think that Russia will attack first? Let me remind you that only Moscow is covered by missile defense, the rest of the cities are “bare”.
            The United States is also modernizing missiles and developing missile defense. So to speak, in two directions they work.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 22 October 2015 11: 24 New
              0
              for Lt. Air Force Stock:
              You, I think, mistakenly believe that Russia is at the center
              US defense concerns. America (reluctantly) had to strain
              after the swift annexation of Crimea by Russian special forces.
              The small countries of NATO, where the army was practically absent, really
              it was (technically feasible) to join Russia just as quickly. They were frightened, and the United States took demonstrative steps to prevent such special operations.
              And America’s main headache is China’s rapidly developing, its army, updated with the latest technology, the Far East, commitments
              in front of the allies there (which are not so easy to fulfill).
              1. Lt. Air Force stock
                Lt. Air Force stock 22 October 2015 11: 37 New
                +2
                Quote: voyaka uh
                You, I think, mistakenly believe that Russia is at the center
                US defense concerns. America (reluctantly) had to strain
                after the swift annexation of Crimea by Russian special forces.

                As someone from the top of the US Department of Defense said, Russia is the only country in the world capable of challenging the United States militarily. Therefore, it is a threat.
                Quote: voyaka uh
                The small countries of NATO, where the army was practically absent, really
                it was (technically feasible) to join Russia just as quickly. They were frightened, and the United States took demonstrative steps to prevent such special operations.

                The United States even before the events in Ukraine began to develop missile defense, back in 2002, withdrew from the ABM Treaty.
                Quote: voyaka uh
                And America’s main headache is China’s rapidly developing, its army, updated with the latest technology, the Far East, commitments

                And so you need to put missile defense missiles in Europe? If that China is far from Europe and missiles in which case will fly the other way. Or do you really believe in this nonsense that the US is building a missile defense system in Europe against China and the Middle East? Then why did the United States refuse to deploy missile defense in Turkey, for example, and use a radar station with us? And why not sign a document according to which this missile defense is not deployed against Russia?
                With the same success, Russia can build a missile defense system in Cuba and Venezuela, naval missile defense ships will patrol off the coast of the United States and Russia will convince everyone that it is all against Iran and North Korea. I think no one will believe.
          5. veksha50
            veksha50 22 October 2015 10: 57 New
            +3
            Quote: voyaka uh
            You will not seriously argue that a company of British soldiers
            in Estonia or 4 Abrams tanks in Lithuania scared Russia?



            Have you ever heard such an expression as "silent expansion" ???

            And, without distorting the facts, you do not understand the essence of the location of these three soldiers and the NATO armored bicycle on the territory of countries bordering Russia ???

            You understand everything, but it gives you pleasure to troll people - citizens of the country from which you left ... Who got you so sick in Russia that you hate her so much ???
          6. evge-malyshev
            evge-malyshev 22 October 2015 11: 00 New
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            You will not seriously argue that a company of British soldiers in Estonia or 4 Abrams tanks in Lithuania scared Russia?


            What should they do in Estonia? In Lithuania?
          7. evge-malyshev
            evge-malyshev 22 October 2015 11: 00 New
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            You will not seriously argue that a company of British soldiers in Estonia or 4 Abrams tanks in Lithuania scared Russia?


            What should they do in Estonia? In Lithuania?
      3. Magic archer
        Magic archer 22 October 2015 10: 03 New
        +9
        Over the past 30 years, the Americans did not give a damn about missile defense, continue to expand NATO, build new carriers for cruise missiles (various and in huge quantities) and continue to impose their aggressive policies on the world! And what can we do?! Sit idly by !? Then I offer Israel to do the same goes for the Arabs!
      4. dali
        dali 22 October 2015 10: 35 New
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Over the past 35 years, the Americans have not developed a single new ICBM. And Russia is a whole series. Nevertheless, Russia stubbornly accuses the States of aggressive plans against it. How so?
        You look at him ... how you fit in with the mattresses ... And then they tell us here that you see their politics as independent ... laughing

        By the way, why did you decide to screw on Russia again? What you "enlightened" and Israel does not sit still?

        Tell Banshee where from here (in VO) some emotional Russians will have a respectful attitude ?! After all, even those of our former compatriots who moved to the United States and then so brazenly do not turn the facts upside down !!!
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 22 October 2015 10: 49 New
          +3
          for Dali:
          “By the way, why did you decide to go to Russia again?” ///

          Why crap? This is your personal perception of my post.

          I am glad that Russia has updated its strategic nuclear
          strength. This is important for her future, and the key to her safety.

          But I am surprised by the anti-American hysteria in Russia.
          If due to the sanctions - it’s clear. It's offensive.

          But what does a nuclear weapon have to do with it?
          You should understand that a nuclear strike on
          America does not plot Russia, and even a conventional war
          against a small country like Iraq, she hardly had the strength.
          1. evge-malyshev
            evge-malyshev 22 October 2015 11: 12 New
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            You should be clear that America is not plotting a nuclear strike on Russia, and even with the usual war against a small country like Iraq, it had difficulty


            The pacifist, however ...
      5. The comment was deleted.
      6. Moore
        Moore 22 October 2015 10: 44 New
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Nevertheless, Russia stubbornly accuses the States of aggressive
        plans against her. How so

        You may have too thin sarcasm, but perhaps its complete absence.
        We are discussing the second option.
        The difference, as they say, in the approaches. I think we don’t need to chew in such a serious audience the essence of the concept of the "Aerospace Operation" adopted in the USA - Russia, alas, it is not yet affordable.
        The development, production, operation of the rocket technology indicated by you is orders of magnitude cheaper than the same processes in terms of the mass use of high-precision weapons with all their infrastructure (real-time reconnaissance equipment, the construction and basing of carriers, etc.).
        In Russia at the moment we see the concept of a balance between precision weapons and strategic nuclear forces, while the Americans will have to somehow compensate for the frivolous attitude towards the development of ICBMs as components of their nuclear forces.
        But the sketch was really good laughing ..
      7. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 22 October 2015 10: 51 New
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Over the past 35 years, Americans have not developed
        not a single new ICBM. And Russia is a whole series.
        Nevertheless, Russia stubbornly accuses the States of aggressive
        plans against her. How so

        The development of missile defense missiles could well be called aggressive actions by the United States designed to devalue the Strategic Missile Forces of Russia with the hypothetical goal of victory in a nuclear war.
        Russia does not have enough money to build its global missile defense, the construction of which is ten times more expensive than the construction of new missiles for the Strategic Missile Forces.
        As for the fact that the Americans did not develop a single new ICBM, this is how to look, the engines are stuffed, the missile guidance system there has been repeatedly upgraded and changed, practically consider a new missile inside with an old hull.
      8. veksha50
        veksha50 22 October 2015 10: 52 New
        +5
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Over the past 35 years, Americans have not developed
        not a single new ICBM. And Russia is a whole series.



        No need to dissemble ...

        Russia does not have a huge number of bases surrounding the United States ... Russia does not have cruise missiles at these non-existent bases for delivering a sudden, lightning-fast destructive strike against the United States ...

        Thanks to the intrigues of the "world hegemon" and the blind faith of our "leaders", we have lost a lot of things (compared to the USA) - the same BZHRK, which the US was very nervous about, the same RSD missiles ... And in the absence of RSD and the absence of bases close to the USA, who won ??? !!!

        If you want to be honest and impartial - be it!
        And juggling the facts, or exposing them at an advantageous-unfavorable angle - this is dishonorable ...
      9. Amurets
        Amurets 22 October 2015 14: 34 New
        +2
        Voyaka uh! The answer is obvious. After the so-called limitation of strategic nuclear forces and the split of the USSR, Russia was virtually left without strategic carriers. The main production of missiles remained in Ukraine. There was nothing to re-equip Typhoons to replace UR-100 light carriers. That was why the military rocket science in Russia had to be re-created. Therefore, I had to create a whole series of missiles as you put it.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. hydrox
      hydrox 22 October 2015 10: 05 New
      +5
      Quote: The same Lech
      . You can’t give WASHINGTON the slightest hope

      That's right, so we need to have so many calibers that there are enough for ALL URO destroyers like Arly Burke, 2 for each, which is located in a 2000-km radius from the flight path of our ICBMs, and they stand up for themselves in the final segment. .. ;-))
  3. anEkeName
    anEkeName 22 October 2015 09: 53 New
    -3
    What does it cost us to extend the deadline? Draw - and approx.
  4. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 22 October 2015 09: 55 New
    +1
    They also quietly extend the terms of their debts and the debt ceiling, too, only the ceiling of the missiles and the shelf life does not depend on what is written on paper.
  5. mpzss
    mpzss 22 October 2015 09: 55 New
    +1
    can sanctions affect !? wink
  6. Old26
    Old26 22 October 2015 10: 01 New
    +4
    Quote: Vladimir
    Then we extended the terms indefinitely now and the mattress with their unmeasured budget took up the same

    This article only says that it’s only taken up. In reality, this work has been going on for at least 15 years. Almost everything is changing. The biggest achievement is, let’s say, “recharging” the rocket stages with new fuel. The Americans were able to do. And we are forced to write off our solid fuel after a certain period. In principle, only the name Minuteman 3 remained old from American missiles. Everything else is new. Electronics, breeding stages, aiming systems, engines ...
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 22 October 2015 13: 26 New
      +1
      Old26! Hello. Volodya, it turns out that their solid propellant rocket generator is a separate glass that can be changed in the stage housing? For the rest, these are the usual planned modernization works.
  7. NEXUS
    NEXUS 22 October 2015 10: 11 New
    +6
    The United States is trying to find an adequate answer to our Caliber, Frontiers and subsequent Sarmatians. Therefore, they are trying to "build muscle." But in fact, now Amers have no "medicine" against both our KR and ICBMs. By 18, there will be another Barguzin BZHRK with Frontiers on board and then the Washington Regional Committee will be completely sad.
    1. MIKHAN
      MIKHAN 22 October 2015 10: 17 New
      +3
      Quote: NEXUS
      The United States is trying to find an adequate answer to our Caliber, Frontiers and subsequent Sarmatians. Therefore, they are trying to "build muscle." But in fact, now Amers have no "medicine" against both our KR and ICBMs. By 18, there will be another Barguzin BZHRK with Frontiers on board and then the Washington Regional Committee will be completely sad.

      And if you immediately started all these developments (without humpback and EBN)? How many lives would be saved in the world ..
  8. Mercenary
    Mercenary 22 October 2015 10: 21 New
    0
    Something in the states is getting better and better, missiles are being extended, government debt will be increased in November, and new papers will be printed. I'm not evil, but still somehow joyful! laughing
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 22 October 2015 10: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: Mercenary
      Something in the states is getting better and better, missiles are being extended, government debt will be increased in November, and new papers will be printed. I'm not evil, but still somehow joyful! laughing

      The next year, Americans made up a budget for the defense industry of nearly 650 billion candy wrappers. The machine there is red in three shifts to print. wink
  9. kizhe
    kizhe 22 October 2015 10: 31 New
    +1
    Our developments suggest that no matter how hardworkers try to drive our defense industry into .ope, they don’t get a damn. And, mind you, we don’t know much. Surely there is still something to wipe their nose with.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 22 October 2015 10: 47 New
      +2
      Quote: kizhe
      Our developments suggest that no matter how hardworkers try to drive our defense industry into .ope, they don’t get a damn. And, mind you, we don’t know much. Surely there is still something to wipe their nose with.

      So on the approach of the S-500, hyper-speed aircraft and missiles ... in general, again from the media, Washington learns that the Russians have surprises, despite the fact that "the economy is torn to shreds."
      1. ferdiperdozzz
        ferdiperdozzz 22 October 2015 13: 53 New
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        So on the approach of the S-500, hyper-speed aircraft and missiles ... in general, again, Washington learns from the media

        Of course from the media, on Facebook they don’t write about it.
  10. LVMI1980
    LVMI1980 22 October 2015 11: 33 New
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Over the past 35 years, Americans have not developed
    not a single new ICBM. And Russia is a whole series.
    Nevertheless, Russia stubbornly accuses the States of aggressive
    plans against her. How so wink ?

    They did not develop because they could not.
    By the way, for the same reason, our engines for LV are purchased
    the idea of ​​railway complexes came from them - could not
    mobile monoblock soil ICBM "Midzhitmen" (analogue of Poplar) was never adopted
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 22 October 2015 14: 20 New
      +2
      Could! once we’ve taken such a step. The hull of the rocket will not work if stored correctly, but the engines will undergo irreversible changes, I mean solid fuel engines. Storage periods do not add stability to the fuel. This applies to both mixed fuel and homogeneous fuel. By the end of the shelf life in the USA in 80-90 years, up to 30% of solid propellant rocket engines were allowed to fail.
      Now about LRE. The Americans are focusing on cryogenic fuels based on liquefied gases. And now testing and refining such engines. Our engines are used as a temporary solution. And do not think that McCain's screams reflect the true situation in the field of space engine manufacturing in the United States. that the very engine building for space is at an impasse. The thing is that the energy characteristics of fuel have reached their limit. And if there are no new types of fuel there will be no breakthrough solutions in military and civilian rocket science.
  11. slizhov
    slizhov 22 October 2015 11: 42 New
    0
    extend, extend ...
    maybe soon on YOU SAME AND PULNET !!!
  12. KAPITANUS
    KAPITANUS 22 October 2015 12: 10 New
    0
    And you can fix them with tape.
  13. roskot
    roskot 22 October 2015 12: 27 New
    0
    is it possible to use missiles for which the storage period established by the manufacturer has already expired ”,

    Can. But we are not responsible for the result.
  14. Old26
    Old26 22 October 2015 16: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: Amurets
    Old26! Hello. Volodya, it turns out that their solid propellant rocket generator is a separate glass that can be changed in the stage housing? For the rest, these are the usual planned modernization works.

    The fact of the matter is that no. They have a bonded charge, that is, not a separate glass, but precisely poured into the case. The whole cimus is in that. They were able to change the fuel in a bonded charge - we, alas, not.

    Quote: NEXUS
    The United States is trying to find an adequate answer to our Caliber, Frontiers and subsequent Sarmatians. Therefore, they are trying to "build muscle." But in fact, now Amers have no "medicine" against both our KR and ICBMs. By 18, there will be another Barguzin BZHRK with Frontiers on board and then the Washington Regional Committee will be completely sad.


    Quote: NEXUS
    The United States is trying to find an adequate answer to our Caliber, Frontiers and subsequent Sarmatians. Therefore, they are trying to "build muscle." But in fact, now Amers have no "medicine" against both our KR and ICBMs. By 18, there will be another Barguzin BZHRK with Frontiers on board and then the Washington Regional Committee will be completely sad.

    Pftat to find an adequate answer to Caliber? But what, several thousand Tomahawks in service are not the answer ???
    Frontier? And what is so unusual about Rubezh? What is it - no one knows yet. Even if there is no "bus" - then this is the "Secret of the General." Play - does not present a technical problem of particular complexity. And here is how BG will behave without a “bus” - IT IS NECESSARY TO CHECK AND CHECK ..

    SARMAT? something supernatural? ordinary rocket heavy class. Starting weight of about 140 tons, cast - 4,5-5 tons. It’s only from the words “Talking Head, Deputy Defense Minister Borisov, she delivers 10 tons to the South Pole. Well, what can I do, he has such a job -“ fuss ”
    Barguzin? An expensive toy. It cannot be called otherwise. In the USSR, 7 were planned, and 3 divisions were deployed. Now planning ONE. What it will result in - no one knows. No one knows what this BZHRK will be constructively. Will it be delivered sub-sectionally? If so, then the very composition with missiles will be the best unmasking sign of this system, because space intelligence for a quarter century has not stood still ...
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 22 October 2015 17: 33 New
      +1
      Yes! They won a lot. For some reason, I thought that they had a fuel charge sealed with a fiberglass glass as heat insulation, and then this glass with a slight interference fit into the stage body. You do not need more details.
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 22 October 2015 23: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      But what, several thousand Tomahawks in service are not the answer ???

      To begin with, the “axes” must be pulled up even further to the launch range. This is time. Second, the very big question is whether these missile defense systems will go through our missile defense system. Third, the conversation is about the fact that besides ICBMs, as it turned out, there are CDs with parameters superior to tamahawks. I won’t talk about the X-101 yet, otherwise you will declare that it’s still at the ICG, but God be with him.
      Quote: Old26
      Frontier? And what is so unusual about Rubezh?

      ICBM ABROAD? Yes, apparently nothing, since you, as a specialist, say this. So that it is capable of undergoing any missile defense in the present and in the near future, it can in no way bewilder either the Europeans or the more so Amers.
      Quote: Old26
      Play - does not present a technical problem of particular complexity

      So what did our sworn friends not reproduce anything like? When, excuse me, remind me was the modernization of the last ICBM MINIMEN? Do not tell me?
      Quote: Old26
      SARMAT? something supernatural?

      Yes, probably there is nothing supernatural. So that it will be able to fly through both poles is simply a whim of our designers. laughing
      Quote: Old26
      Starting weight of about 140 tons, cast - 4,5-5 tons.

      Oh how laughing Do you already know the performance characteristics of Sarmat? Very interesting. Then hear the full detailed characteristics of this product.
      Quote: Old26
      Barguzin? An expensive toy.

      Weapons as well as the country's defense capabilities, do you know expensive pleasure in itself. And so do you think you need to rivet old systems and systems so that it is cheap and not expensive?
      Quote: Old26
      Now they plan ONE.

      I was planning to plant one row of eggplants at the dacha, but it turned out three beds ... what do you believe in the media and the Internet? That is, we forget about inform war and the concept of state secrets too.
      Quote: Old26
      No one knows what this BZHRK will be constructively.

      Only those who directly built, developed and who will work on it should know. And you or I just do not need to know.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. Old26
    Old26 22 October 2015 16: 04 New
    0
    Quote: LVMI1980
    They didn’t develop because they couldn’t. By the way, for the same reason, our engines for LV are purchased

    Do not write nonsense! If there is no particular need to change ICBMs in the next 10-15 years, then why change them, it is easier to upgrade. In the future, they have "Minuteman-4"

    Our engines buy for a completely different reason. There was a competition for the creation or purchase of engines with a certain thrust. The number of purchased - about 100 pieces, that is, 50 launches. They make the rest of the engine line now.

    Moreover, the promising engines that they have now in operation surpass ours in all respects. And they know how to count money. Spend 15 billion and do it in three years, or spend 5 and do it in 7-10 years. They went this way. And we, moreover, also rejoice that without us "no one" can't do anything while working as ordinary taxi drivers

    Quote: LVMI1980
    the idea of ​​railway complexes came from them - they couldn’t take into service the movable monoblock soil ICBM Midzhitmen (an analogue of Topol)

    Usually they say such cases: LEARN MATCH. And you are not "Knowing where to ring" start broadcasting. If they knew, they wouldn’t be foolish.

    first. The idea of ​​BZHRK did not come from them, but from the Germans. Back in the 60s, we developed such BZHRK. The attempt to create a BZHRK on their basis on the basis of the MX, in principle, was crowned with success. But the difference is that our railways were state owned, and their private ones led to the fact that in order to implement this idea they had to build a parallel railway, which is not profitable. As the "Track" location option was not profitable

    Second. "Mignation" has never been an analogue of "Poplar", so that you know. A 15-ton rocket cannot be the equivalent of a 45-ton rocket. "Dwarf" was developed in parallel with our "Courier", and a mutual decision was made to stop developing these complexes
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 October 2015 22: 42 New
      0
      They have a huge reserve for modernization of the Minuteman 3 and Trident 2D5 ICBMs, and even if necessary, they can resume the production of MX missiles.
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 23 October 2015 01: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      And they know how to count money.

      Well, the F-35 program clearly shows how they can count money. laughing Or you can recall SOI. Or, for example, the SIVULF and Zamvolt programs. hi
  17. alkur
    alkur 22 October 2015 18: 46 New
    0
    Quote: Bone
    Let them prolong it, maybe they have them later, at the start they fucking ...?!

    I hope there will be no starts.
  18. Amurets
    Amurets 23 October 2015 01: 34 New
    +1
    And what do we pray for in the BZHRK? It’s much easier to create a mobile complex on a car chassis. They don’t limit the size. The size of this frame is 2,7 meters in width and 3,0 in height. The automobile dimensions allowed by the rules are larger. Due to the fact that the car is not tied to rails, it is easier to hide it. Now such a parameter as the axle load on the rails, now it is 25 tons and so far there are no prerequisites that it will increase. Yes, theoretically, you can squeeze a R-29RM missile into the dimensions of a covered wagon 11-260; 11-280; 11-286. The dimensions allow, but the question is how to disguise the train, if the length of the train, which is usual for traffic, composes RZD somewhere at least 60 wagons. Knowing that we have a BZHRK short train will immediately arouse suspicion. And another question? Why do we need such a train? For the sake of prestige? So we already had such a train. For the pleasure of spending money, so we have much less military budget. Think! 4-5 conventional tractors with semitrailers are much easier to disguise. And such developments were carried out.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 23 October 2015 01: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: Amurets
      Dimensions allow, but the question is how to disguise the train, if the length of the train that is usual for a turnaround amounts to at least 60 wagons for the Russian Railways. Knowing that we have a BZHRK short train will immediately arouse suspicion

      Are there few “short” trains hanging on distillation tracks? Railway is almost everywhere, and it is very problematic to track the train if it is no different from a simple train, because there will be no reinforced bottom like the Molodets or any other visible signs. Pioneers production experience will probably be taken into account.
      Quote: Amurets
      Why do we need such a train?

      Then, it’s very difficult to trace the BZHRK. And it can start from any point on the route.
      Therefore, at one time, the United States insisted on destroying the BZHRK first of all. Not for the sake of simple whim, but because Well done represented a really real threat to the security of America, due to the difficulties of tracking them.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 23 October 2015 06: 27 New
        +1
        Recently, on the Trans-Siberian Railway, at least prefabricated, working and similar trains have become very few. It’s even more difficult to track the movement of a tractor with a semi-trailer. The reinforced bottom did not serve as a unmasking sign. -62 and an 8-axle launch car. Since the "refrigerated cars" in both six and eight-axle versions were used only for transporting special cargoes, and the Americans knew this and tried to track them by any means. There is a series of books by E. D. Kochnev about fleet of the Russian Army from 1917 to the present day. If you wish, pay attention to the book from this series "Secret Cars of the Soviet Army". There you can find a lot of interesting things. There are three books in total.