Military Review

This year, the Russian Armed Forces received 35 ballistic missiles

42
In 2015, 35 of ballistic missiles entered the Armed Forces, reports MIC With reference to the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergey Shoigu.


This year, the Russian Armed Forces received 35 ballistic missiles


“In total, 35 of new ballistic missiles were supplied to the Armed Forces, which made it possible to achieve an 55% level of equipment for the nuclear triad with modern weapons”
Shoigu said Friday at the ministry board.

He also noted that ground forces were brought to a new qualitative level.

“The Ground Forces have formed 8 brigades for various purposes, two brigade sets of Iskander-M missile systems have been delivered to the troops,” the minister said.
Photos used:
Global look press
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Silkway0026
    Silkway0026 13 December 2015 12: 42 New
    11
    35 missiles? And dig a strait - how much is needed?

    (Not the Bosphorus to expand, but between Canada and Mexico)
    1. MIKHALYCH1
      MIKHALYCH1 13 December 2015 12: 46 New
      10
      Something is not enough ... hi
      1. oleg-gr
        oleg-gr 13 December 2015 13: 00 New
        10
        To create a strait to them. Stalin's one rocket will not be enough. It is possible to understand more precisely only during practical work. True Americans will be strongly against ...
        1. avva2012
          avva2012 13 December 2015 14: 06 New
          +9
          After carrying out practical work, they will not mind.
        2. Ostwest
          Ostwest 13 December 2015 14: 14 New
          -1
          The Yellowstone volcano should be checked for lice. In the case of a successful hit there with a charge of 10-15 mgt. in the earth's crust, processes will begin to create the Stalin Strait.
          So maybe one rocket is enough.
          The point of impact and charge power should be selected after consultation with volcanic geologists.
          Academician Sakharov, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, recommended that several thermonuclear charges along the US coastline be detonated. The resulting wave of 300-500-1000 m. The coast will be processed so that there will not be a single arsonist of the war. A cold shower helps a lot.
        3. Drmadfisher
          Drmadfisher 13 December 2015 14: 15 New
          0
          a couple of Yellowstone Park
        4. pvv113
          pvv113 13 December 2015 14: 25 New
          +9
          Hitler was also against Katyush, but no one asked his opinion wink
          1. volodimer
            volodimer 13 December 2015 14: 42 New
            +2
            The Germans initially believed that the "kayushi" a primitive type of weapon, compared with their development. But those who grabbed it didn’t count (if they were still able to count). So the coconuts are talking about their technical superiority ... Well, as we can see, besides the old, primitive :) we also have 35 new ones ... They want to check?
          2. Markiz_A
            Markiz_A 13 December 2015 17: 19 New
            -12
            Hitler had his Katyusha, no worse than ours. By the way, the further development of the MLRS went the way of improving the German models.
            1. gunya
              gunya 13 December 2015 20: 10 New
              +2
              By the way, the further development of the MLRS went the way of improving the German models.


              The statement is quite unfounded.
              1. Markiz_A
                Markiz_A 14 December 2015 08: 27 New
                -1
                Books should be read or, as a last resort, read on the Internet, and not just sit on forums.
                The stabilization of MS was achieved through rotation. For us, this was realized by installing the plumage of the missiles at an angle, which gave it rotation; in the German, rotation was achieved due to the inclined nozzles. All modern MLRS models use the German method.
        5. S_last
          S_last 13 December 2015 19: 01 New
          +1
          Even if we discard all moral and ethical standards about channels, you are not confused that the article talks about Iskander-M complexes. How do you imagine digging a channel with them? Actually, like others, they talk about warheads of 20-60 MT. This is an operational-tactical complex with a range of target destruction from 50 to 300 km. In the Iskander-K variant, I don’t know if such a one was created with a cruise missile, 500 km.
          1. serhz
            serhz 14 December 2015 08: 19 New
            0
            ... n the principle is yes, it is, and the caliber is also some 300 km., ...
      2. shans2
        shans2 13 December 2015 13: 56 New
        +2
        another half of December, they should do up to 42 per year, as promised, 38 were done last year.
        1. dmi.pris
          dmi.pris 13 December 2015 14: 10 New
          +1
          Purely in the Nashensky style. December 31, we make 30% of the plan ... And the quality? In general, in connection with the situation, they should do three times more .. Although it’s clear that there’s nothing left of the industry, only a huge amount of chatter in the media. It’s not "and a statement of fact, it is NECESSARY to DESTROY the SYSTEM ... And industrialization (and not" import substitution ")
          Quote: shans2
          another half of December, they should do up to 42 per year, as promised, 38 were done last year.
        2. 222222
          222222 13 December 2015 17: 20 New
          0
          SHOIGU "" Six missile regiments, equipped with Yars complexes of stationary and mobile basing, entered the combat duty
          .But on the Strategic Missile Forces ... 6 RP * 3 RD * 3 PU = 54 ICBMs ...
      3. fif21
        fif21 13 December 2015 20: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: MIKHALYCHXNNX
        Something is not enough ...
        Nuclear weapons are enough to destroy the earth several times! I would like to hear that Russians live no worse than Germans! hi
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 13 December 2015 20: 55 New
        0
        Quote: MIKHALYCHXNNX
        Something is not enough ...

        Well, according to START-3, by 2020 there should be no more than 700 total deployed carriers (+100 not deployed).
        1/20 of our nuclear shield has been updated.
      6. Simple
        Simple 13 December 2015 21: 54 New
        +1
        108-168 mln ₽ for 1 neg!
        What do you want?

        Complex (on 2012): 2,4 trillion rubles / 16 pieces.
        So consider "not enough" Ali as
    2. MIKHALYCH1
      MIKHALYCH1 13 December 2015 12: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: Silkway0026
      35 missiles? And dig a strait - how much is needed?

      (Not the Bosphorus to expand, but between Canada and Mexico)

      One is enough ... Hydrogen 100m ton! bully
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 13 December 2015 13: 00 New
        0
        Quote: MIKHALYCHXNNX
        One is enough ...

        Well, provided that the armament is, as the liberalist Nadezhdin argued, "full-time nuclear weapons with a capacity of 60 megatons." And then when it hits the Yellowstone Caldera. Then there is some probability. True, then the earth will have a hard time, to put it mildly ...
        1. MIKHALYCH1
          MIKHALYCH1 13 December 2015 13: 26 New
          0
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          Quote: MIKHALYCHXNNX
          One is enough ...

          Well, provided that the armament is, as the liberalist Nadezhdin argued, "full-time nuclear weapons with a capacity of 60 megatons." And then when it hits the Yellowstone Caldera. Then there is some probability. True, then the earth will have a hard time, to put it mildly ...

          Well try, you can still ... We already have nothing to lose! hi And we can!
          1. EvgNik
            EvgNik 13 December 2015 13: 53 New
            +2
            Quote: MIKHALYCHXNNX
            Well try, you can still ... We already have nothing to lose!

            Well, nothing? About son Mikhalych, do not forget! He is only 8 years old, he has not lived yet. Mikhalych, minus, didn’t I tell you that I immediately got into the bottle?
            1. Ami du peuple
              Ami du peuple 13 December 2015 14: 02 New
              +3
              Quote: EvgNik
              Well, nothing?

              Everyone has something to lose. And our sworn friends over the puddle, too. I hope the mind will prevail; but every day there is less hope of it. Our country can be placed in such conditions when there is nothing left to lose - the dilemmas "Death or Shame" will not be left for us. And so we are peaceful people ...
              1. Aleksander
                Aleksander 13 December 2015 15: 04 New
                +1
                Quote: Ami du peuple
                Everyone has something to lose. And our sworn friends over the puddle, too. I hope the mind will prevail; but every day there is less hope of it. Our country can be placed in conditions when there will be nothing left to lose

                I agree with you. And in this regard, I want to quote the words of my grandfather, a volunteer in June 41: "June 22 should NEVER happen again, never!" To remember the leadership of the country ...
      2. shuhartred
        shuhartred 14 December 2015 01: 22 New
        0
        Quote: MIKHALYCHXNNX
        One is enough ... Hydrogen 100m ton!

        There is a suspicion that such a bomb for the whole planet will be enough.
    3. venaya
      venaya 13 December 2015 12: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: Silkway0026
      And dig a strait - how much is needed?
      (Not the Bosphorus to expand, but between Canada and Mexico)

      Problems with the passage of our ships along the Bosphorus still force us to spend a little more money. I think that some part will have to be used in those places.
    4. Uran
      Uran 13 December 2015 13: 40 New
      +2
      We need to build up our nuclear arsenal as much as possible. Gone are the days when the US commission came and regulated the control of the number of ball missiles. and mines.
    5. win
      win 13 December 2015 13: 57 New
      +2
      (Do not expand the Bosphorus, but between Canada and Mexico


      The question should be wider - the strait between Mexico and Alaska
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. Denis Obukhov
      Denis Obukhov 13 December 2015 14: 31 New
      +1
      Does anyone know which nuclear warheads are being put on new missiles?

      Old (produced by the USSR), or new warheads are also made for them.

      It’s just interesting, because it’s no longer possible to test and produce nuclear weapons, but everything has its own shelf life
      1. S_last
        S_last 13 December 2015 19: 14 New
        0
        I think in reality missiles installed warheads without nuclear weapons. According to TTX, the possibility of using a nuclear warhead is one of many options. At least the Minister of Defense of Russia claims that the complexes located on the western border, in particular, the Kaliningrad region, do not have such combat units.
    8. albanian
      albanian 13 December 2015 22: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: Silkway0026
      35 missiles? And dig a strait - how much is needed?

      (Not the Bosphorus to expand, but between Canada and Mexico)


      I even became interested, but really how much?
      We take an engineering explosion, the one that the lake did with a diameter of 400 meters, we get an area of ​​about 125 square kilometers, divide it by 10 million kilometers of square states, by 125, we get about 80000, well, round up to a hundred.
      Next, let's go into the depths, we know that an engineering explosion of ~ 200 kilotons, at a depth of about 200 tons, made us a crater 100 meters deep. Since we will not drill the mines, we take a megaton with a ground explosion, determining it at 50 meters averaged depth. Total to approximately get to the sea level (in the states on average they say 700 meters above sea level), we multiply our one hundred thousand cores by 14, we get somewhere four million (1400000) megaton ground explosions.
      The calculations are certainly very approximate, but I think the order of numbers is clear)
  2. Magic archer
    Magic archer 13 December 2015 12: 43 New
    +4
    Previously, such information was a state secret ... In general, it is not clear why talk about it out loud! Let the enemies make efforts to find out!
    1. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 13 December 2015 12: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: Magic Archer
      Previously, such information was a state secret.

      Now no. It’s not even a secret that they promised in 2015 to put ballistic missiles into the troops of 40. Did not manage? Or will they catch up before the end of the year?
      1. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 13 December 2015 13: 49 New
        0
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        Quote: Magic Archer
        Previously, such information was a state secret.

        Now no. It’s not even a secret that they promised in 2015 to put ballistic missiles into the troops of 40. Did not manage? Or will they catch up before the end of the year?

        This information, beginning with START-1, has never been secret. Both America and the USSR, and now Russia knew and know how many strategic offensive weapons the other side has.
    2. MIKHALYCH1
      MIKHALYCH1 13 December 2015 12: 50 New
      +8
      Well, okay, the answer is enough to "bang" .. The West knows! hi
    3. i80186
      i80186 13 December 2015 13: 08 New
      +2
      Quote: Magic Archer
      Previously, such information was a state secret ... In general, it is not clear why talk about it out loud! Let the enemies make efforts to find out!

      This is when exactly before? Are you talking about WWS, strategic offensive arms at all? Since 1972, the number of missiles has been mutually controlled. They know very well how many, what and with which warhead missiles we have, but we also know about their missiles.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 13 December 2015 13: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Magic Archer
      Previously, such information was a state secret ... In general, it is not clear why talk about it out loud! Let the enemies make efforts to find out!

      Under START-3, inspectors from Russia and the United States can inspect the availability of strategic offensive weapons. Each side constantly provides other information on the removal, destruction, replacement of its strategic offensive arms. Therefore, for Russia and America it is not a secret how many strategic offensive arms are on the opposite side.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 13 December 2015 16: 44 New
        0
        But it’s interesting. Maybe I was just lazy and did not read the texts of these agreements, but ... There are open statistics and notification of the enemy on the number of charges and carriers.
        And in terms of the total power of the charges? You can have, for example, 1600 warheads of 100 kilotons, or you can have the same 1600 warheads of 20 megatons.
        Does anyone know this is somehow regulated? Or is it a hidden reserve for rearmament?
    6. EvgNik
      EvgNik 13 December 2015 13: 56 New
      0
      Quote: Magic Archer
      It’s not at all clear why talk about it out loud!

      And who said that everything is said? It just doesn’t happen that all the cards are laid out on the table.
    7. Vorobey-1
      Vorobey-1 13 December 2015 18: 25 New
      0
      Previously, such information was a state secret ... In general, it is not clear why talk about it out loud! Let the enemies make efforts to find out!


      And who said that the truth is being laid out to the public, as they say, "it was also written on the fence." Maybe 100 set!?
      Guys, officially say what they think is necessary to say, and not what really is
  3. kodxnumx
    kodxnumx 13 December 2015 12: 46 New
    -2
    It’s just wonderful, the United States doesn’t do this at all, that's where corruption spends so much dough and the result is 0 not missiles of airplanes not planes, if we had their money we would have built a base for living on Mars wink
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 13 December 2015 13: 54 New
      +2
      Quote: kod3001
      It’s just wonderful, the United States doesn’t do this at all, that's where corruption spends so much dough and the result is 0 not missiles of airplanes not planes, if we had their money we would have built a base for living on Mars wink

      You are not right. American Trident-2 missiles are considered, so far, not surpassed, i.e. the best rockets. In addition, they are now preparing an upgrade to Trident-3.
      Do not underestimate the enemy. In 1941, too, was not underestimated.
      1. dvina71
        dvina71 13 December 2015 19: 11 New
        +3
        Quote: Алексей_К
        American Trident-2 missiles are considered, so far, not surpassed, i.e. the best rockets


        Who are considered? Well, what kind of kindergarten ..? Do you know the exact performance characteristics of Russian missiles? Or maybe the Pentagon reported to you on the Trident Trials? This is a bike from the high-noise category of Soviet submarines.
  4. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 13 December 2015 12: 47 New
    +4
    Given that the manufacture of missiles is not a matter of one day, and Russia can release about 40 missiles per year, this is encouraging! It can be seen that the workload of the enterprises of the defense complex is at a decent level. And if we add the overseas contracts to this, then this is a wonderful trend today.
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 13 December 2015 13: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: dchegrinec
      Given that the manufacture of missiles is not a matter of one day, and Russia can release about 40 missiles per year, this is encouraging! It can be seen that the workload of the enterprises of the defense complex is at a decent level. And if we add the overseas contracts to this, then this is a wonderful trend today.

      According to START-3, we can only replace existing missiles. We cannot increase their total number.
  5. sichevik
    sichevik 13 December 2015 12: 51 New
    +3
    That is good!!! Let the enemies fight their turnips. This is now 36 pieces a year, but we'll see. Or maybe not 36, but more. As for me, the more the better. The more headaches in the Pentagon and NATO.
  6. Yuriy Nikolayevich
    Yuriy Nikolayevich 13 December 2015 12: 54 New
    14
    Our answer)))
  7. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 13 December 2015 12: 59 New
    +6
    Well, not the whole arsenal is updated every year? As much as needed, they did so much. On the "otvetku" enough enough. What "partners" know about. And this is exactly what NEVER will forgive Russia. Only she is not going to ask for forgiveness.
  8. 2s1122
    2s1122 13 December 2015 13: 02 New
    +2
    Indeed, with the amount of money spent on armaments, the open spaces of our solar system would have long plowed. Unfortunately, some politicians and states with their technology of thinking remain at the level of a primitive creature, but it’s a pity to live ....? what
  9. AlexTires
    AlexTires 13 December 2015 13: 15 New
    +1
    Five days a year ago, Putin said that the army would receive 50 new intercontinental ballistic missiles ... Where are the other fifteen?
    1. MIKHALYCH1
      MIKHALYCH1 13 December 2015 13: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: AlexTires
      Five days a year ago, Putin said that the army would receive 50 new intercontinental ballistic missiles ... Where are the other fifteen?

      They gave Iran ...?
      1. AlexTires
        AlexTires 13 December 2015 13: 52 New
        0
        Quote: MIKHALYCHXNNX
        They gave Iran ...?

        Or maybe comrade Eun .....
    2. askort154
      askort154 13 December 2015 14: 20 New
      +2
      AlexTires .... Five days ago, Putin said that the army would receive 50 new intercontinental ballistic missiles ... Where are the other fifteen?

      From Putin’s speech on June 16, 2015.
      In 2015, 40 intercontinental ballistic missiles will enter service.
      1. askort154
        askort154 13 December 2015 14: 43 New
        +1
        askort154 ... From Putin’s speech on June 16, 2015.
        In 2015, 40 intercontinental ballistic missiles will enter service.

        PS. From the speech of the GDP to the collegium of VO December 19.12.2014, XNUMX
        In service in 2015. 50 ICBMs will arrive.
        Six months later, plans changed for the worse.
    3. putnik
      putnik 13 December 2015 14: 32 New
      0
      In Karaganda! Oh, again, a secret! winked
  10. driving
    driving 13 December 2015 13: 36 New
    +2
    It will not be enough
  11. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 13 December 2015 13: 43 New
    0
    Still on the warhead statistics were issued; how much is not needed (let them guess), but how much is added is quite possible.

    And then I read an interview with Prokhanov, who claims to have been to closed production (how? Who let him go there?). He stated that the plant (which one he didn’t say) was working round the clock; thousands are being fabricated not only warheads for strategic missiles, but, allegedly, charges for atomic torpedoes, for bottom nuclear mines, and - attention! - nuclear mines! I would like to know - the truth or not.
    1. MIKHALYCH1
      MIKHALYCH1 13 December 2015 13: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Gormengast
      Still on the warhead statistics were issued; how much is not needed (let them guess), but how much is added is quite possible.

      And then I read an interview with Prokhanov, who claims to have been to closed production (how? Who let him go there?). He stated that the plant (which one he didn’t say) was working round the clock; thousands are being fabricated not only warheads for strategic missiles, but, allegedly, charges for atomic torpedoes, for bottom nuclear mines, and - attention! - nuclear mines! I would like to know - the truth or not.

      He’s lying! Do not believe ... hi
  12. Sergey-72
    Sergey-72 13 December 2015 13: 47 New
    +2
    How much we let in, so much we do, why more? When we deliver to the railway platform, in general beauty will be.
    1. MIKHALYCH1
      MIKHALYCH1 13 December 2015 13: 49 New
      0
      Quote: Sergey-72
      How much we let in, so much we do, why more? When we deliver to the railway platform, in general beauty will be.

      And let them look .... good
  13. Al_oriso
    Al_oriso 13 December 2015 13: 55 New
    0
    ground forces are brought to a new quality level

    I would like to be more specific about the new quality level.
  14. avva2012
    avva2012 13 December 2015 14: 15 New
    +1
    Quote: Gormengast
    And then I read an interview with Prokhanov, who claims to have been to closed production

    Prokhanov, not Zhirinovsky, a serious man, watches his broom. So that is quite ...
  15. Vadim237
    Vadim237 13 December 2015 14: 19 New
    0
    Probably after some time the military will return to the development and projects of ICBMs with missile interceptors instead of nuclear warheads.
  16. Old26
    Old26 13 December 2015 14: 20 New
    0
    Quote: Gormengast
    I would like to know - true or not.

    You yourself answered this question by asking the question who let him go there. Storyteller Prokhanov. Not to say rude

    Quote: shans2
    another half of December, they should do up to 42 per year, as promised, 38 were done last year.

    I'm afraid to make a mistake, but in the past it seems like 52, or 54. In the year before last, it really seems 42. But you have to look in the archive

    Quote: Gormengast
    Still on the warhead statistics issued

    Well, this is nothing complicated. There are a total number and by type.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. evge-malyshev
    evge-malyshev 13 December 2015 15: 06 New
    0
    Quote: "... 35 new ballistic missiles were delivered, which made it possible to achieve 55% of the level of equipping the nuclear triad with modern weapons."

    I just can’t understand why specific figures are even given by the lips of such senior leaders as the Minister of Defense? So many missiles (tanks, planes, ships, etc.), achieve such a percentage of the level of readiness, etc. etc. ... Or does modern technology already allow a potential adversary to know all the details of both production and equipping the army with military equipment? Mb who will tell?
  19. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 13 December 2015 15: 33 New
    0
    God grant! Let the adversaries know that Russia will cook horseradish with a screw for every tricky .ope.
  20. Genur
    Genur 13 December 2015 15: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: pvv113


    Hitler was also against Katyush, but no one asked his opinion



    And then we did not report the coordinates ...
  21. Markiz_A
    Markiz_A 13 December 2015 17: 24 New
    +1
    And what kind of ballistic missiles? After all, the Iskanders are also ballistic. If they made 35 ICBMs then this is one thing, and if they made missiles with a range of 480 km, then it’s completely different.
  22. Barakuda
    Barakuda 13 December 2015 17: 44 New
    +2
    I recall "Point - U" at the Ukrainian exercises, when a blank (thank God) was stuck in a high-rise building Brovary. 7th-9th floor. (This is near Kiev) 2000 was.
    I would like to drink such specialists for the repose.
  23. mamont5
    mamont5 13 December 2015 18: 23 New
    +1
    Quote: Markiz_A
    Hitler had his Katyusha, no worse than ours. By the way, the further development of the MLRS went the way of improving the German models.

    These are what "settings" do you mean? The six-barreled Nebelwerfer mortar (obviously did not reach Katyusha) or the U-2 missile (a completely different type of weapon). As for the "improvement" of the German samples (U-2), after testing the trophies, Korolev decided to go his own way and ahead of the German developer von Braun, who had already served as amers.
    1. Markiz_A
      Markiz_A 13 December 2015 19: 13 New
      -3
      1. And what up to "Katyush" did not reach? Only slightly inferior in firing range.
      2. What does the V-2 have to do with it? It is written by the MLRS. Or you and a ballistic missile ranked as a jet mortar.
      3. The stabilization of missiles in flight, both on our Grads and on foreign samples, was taken from German samples, and not from Katyusha.
      4. The first 2pcs BM-13 made June 27, 1941. The Germans in 1934 already had jet mortar batteries.
  24. Old26
    Old26 13 December 2015 19: 30 New
    0
    Quote: avva2012
    Quote: Gormengast
    And then I read an interview with Prokhanov, who claims to have been to closed production

    Prokhanov, not Zhirinovsky, a serious man, watches his broom. So that is quite ...

    Yeah, it follows, how. I was at a certain factory where thousands of warheads are being stamped for ICBMs, combat charging compartments for nuclear torpedoes, charges for nuclear mines and land mines ...

    But it’s nothing that each design bureau that does BG for ICBMs, BZOs and everything else has their own factories. And just at the factory where they do BG for ICBMs will they never do anything else ??

    Quote: Markiz_A
    And what kind of ballistic missiles? After all, the Iskanders are also ballistic. If they made 35 ICBMs then this is one thing, and if they made missiles with a range of 480 km, then it’s completely different.

    Iskandras are not included in the triad. And as for the Iskander, the 2 brigades are 24 launchers or 48 missiles. So it's not about tactical

    Quote: Vorobey-1
    And who said that the truth is being laid out to the public, as they say, "it was also written on the fence." Maybe 100 set!? Guys, officially say what they think is necessary to say, and not what really is

    Are the inspectors also told? Or do they check every rocket ???
  25. Barakuda
    Barakuda 13 December 2015 22: 31 New
    +1
    Kiev. "Kievpribor". Borschagovsky branch. Riveted body-fittings for ICBMs. In white coats, even the CNC operators, he adjusted them. Alcohol sea, but no one drank. All in the thorn on the fences with towers .. I gave a subscription, but now it’s possible. Ruined all the fuck. And they paid well - 400 rubles. it was quite normal under the USSR, given that I was only after graduation.
    And workflow automation was. I pressed the button, and the elevator lifted the necessary microcircuits with transistors to me. Only lend a hand.
  26. Old26
    Old26 13 December 2015 23: 47 New
    0
    Quote: 222222
    SHOIGU "" Six missile regiments, equipped with Yars complexes of stationary and mobile basing, entered the combat duty
    .But on the Strategic Missile Forces ... 6 RP * 3 RD * 3 PU = 54 ICBMs ...

    Is not a fact. How many times has there been such a message: "the regiment of the XXX division consisting of one division and the mobile command post of the regiment was put on combat duty"
    In addition, of the released part went to equip the second "Borea"

    Quote: Ami du peuple
    60 megatons standard nuclear charges

    The most powerful charge (regular) was on one of the modifications of the R-36M rocket. Its power was twenty-five megatons ... But even they are no longer in service ...

    Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
    Well, according to START-3, by 2020 there should be no more than 700 total deployed carriers (+100 not deployed).

    to 2018

    Quote: Uranus
    We need to build up our nuclear arsenal as much as possible. Gone are the days when the US commission came and regulated the control of the number of ball missiles. and mines.

    If you read the texts of the treaties, you would not write such nonsense. The “commission” (actually the inspection team) did not regulate anything. She simply compared the number of products and mines (launchers) with the declared. Our inspection team likewise compared
  27. van zai
    van zai 14 December 2015 00: 17 New
    -1
    The article smells of Agitprom at times. Which missiles exactly? Yars, Iskander is incomprehensible.
    About secrecy. I remember in the journal ZVO an article was published annually on the quantity and cost of weapons produced in the USA. And everything is kept secret here, in the USSR, now. Moreover, the adversary is clearly in the know. Maybe they secret from their own people, well, such as “It's a shame to read out the numbers”?
  28. bannik
    bannik 14 December 2015 02: 48 New
    0
    Mysteriously somehow. TR ("point"), OTR ("Iskander"), well, about the "strategists" and I do not say - all ballistic! So what kind of ballistic missiles were added to us? If it’s like “poplar” or “mace”, then it’s normal, if it’s a spark point, it’s not enough!
  29. Old26
    Old26 14 December 2015 08: 08 New
    0
    Quote: bannik
    Mysteriously somehow. TR ("point"), OTR ("Iskander"), well, about the "strategists" and I do not say - all ballistic! So what kind of ballistic missiles were added to us? If it’s like “poplar” or “mace”, then it’s normal, if it’s a spark point, it’s not enough!

    The last few years, when such figures were voiced, it was always about strategists. That is about ICBMs and SLBMs.