Military Review

This Russian nuclear weapon is better than American (The National Interest, USA)

37
This Russian nuclear weapon is better than American (The National Interest, USA)



The new Russian missiles are significantly superior to the American ones.

Russian-American relations (as well as Russian relations with NATO) have reached a record low in the last two years. As a result, the issue of nuclear weapons came to the fore again. In the most serious declarations it has been repeatedly stated that the parties are preparing to launch nuclear strikes against each other. For example, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently published his annual report stating that the Russian Air Force conducted a training flight in 2013 during which a “nuclear strike on Sweden” was practiced. The report notes that long-range supersonic Tu-22М3 supersonic bombers, operating under the cover of Su-27 fighters, were involved in this task. Meanwhile, NATO member Turkey is just a few steps away from the war with Russia, which by no means simplifies the situation.

In such a situation, it would be useful to assess the state of the US and Russian nuclear forces. How does this situation affect the strategic balance, convincing the parties of the unreasonableness of the beginning of the conflict? And what are the prospects for the development of nuclear forces in the two superpowers?

Both parties comply with the START-3 agreement.

The agreement on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms, signed by 8 on April 2010, by Presidents Obama and Medvedev, obliges the parties to reduce the number of their nuclear warheads to 1 550. The number of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and heavy strategic bombers is limited to 700 units. According to data released by the US Department of State on 1, the parties have already reached or are close to achieving the indicated figures. The United States has a 741 1 nuclear warhead with a deployed platform for launching a 481 521 nuclear warhead, and Russia’s 1 nuclear warheads. The difference is insignificant, and it does not affect the strategic balance. Russia currently has fewer launchers, but this inequality is explained by the fact that ICBMs with separable warheads of individual guidance have a wider field of application - one ICBM can carry up to ten warheads.

Ground-based US ICBMs stuck in the 1970s

In service with the US, there are only one type of ground-based ICBMs - LGM-30G “Minuteman-3”. Each rocket carries one W87 warhead with a capacity of up to 300 kilotons (but can carry up to three warheads). The last rocket of this type was made in 1978 year. This means that the “youngest” of them is 38 years. These missiles have been repeatedly upgraded, and their service life is scheduled for completion in 2030.

A new ICBM system called GBSD (a strategic ground-based deterrent) seems stuck at the discussion stage. The US Air Force requested 62,3 a billion dollars to develop and manufacture new missiles, and they hope to get 2017 million dollars in the 113,9 year. However, the White House does not support this application. In fact, many there are against this idea. The development was postponed for a year, and now the outlook for GBSD will depend on the outcome of the presidential election in 2016.

It is worth noting that the US government intends to spend a tremendous amount on nuclear weapons: about 348 billions of dollars by 2024, and 26 billions will go to ICBMs. But for GBSD 26 billions is not enough. Real costs may be higher, given the fact that the United States has not produced new land-based intercontinental missiles for a long time. The last such rocket called the LGM-118A "Piper" was deployed in the 1986 year. But by the year 2005, the United States unilaterally removed all 50 missiles of this type from combat duty, although it would not be an exaggeration to say that the LGM-118A "Piper" was better compared to the LGM-30G "Minuteman-3", since 10 warheads. Despite the failure of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-2), which prohibited the use of individual-targeted MIRVs, the United States voluntarily abandoned its MER. Trust in them was lost because of the high cost, and also because of the scandal, during which it turned out that these missiles had been for almost four years (1984-88) there was no guidance system AIRS (improved inertial reference sphere). In addition, the missile company tried to hide the delivery delay — at a time when the Cold War was coming to an end.

Land-based Russian ICBMs: New Technologies Against Missile Defense

Russia currently has a wide range of ground-based ICBMs, including mobile launchers. In 2015, the Russian Strategic Missile Forces received the 24 new units of the RS-24 “Yars” missiles both in the mine and mobile versions. This missile can carry individual targeting 3-4 MWRs that are capable of overcoming missile defense systems. It is safe to assume that the supply of such missiles in the 2016 year will not yield to the level of the 2015 year. By the time of 2020, Russia will be able to replace the Topol missile (in fact, it is the equivalent of “Minuteman-3) with the latest models that are capable of overcoming the enemy’s missile defense system.

Russia also possesses ground-based heavy liquid-fuel ICBMs. The well-known rocket R-36М2 "Voyevoda", in service with the 1988 year. It can carry 10 warheads up to 750 kilotons each. This year, the PC-28 Sarmat, which should replace Voivode in 2020, will be tested and will have the capabilities to overcome missile defense. First of all, it is expected that this rocket will lead a warhead to a suborbital trajectory (it is slightly shorter than a circular orbit, which is prohibited by international agreements). This missile can be struck from anywhere, even from the South Pole. This forces the potential adversary to create an integrated missile defense system, which is extremely expensive even for the United States. Moreover, warheads enter the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds and move along a longer path, maneuvering at a speed of 7-7,5 kilometer per second. Pre-launch preparation of the rocket will be minimized, accounting for less than a minute after receiving the order.

Russia also has the PC-26 mysterious Frontier rocket. There is little information about it, but most likely this complex is a further development of the Yars project, with the ability to strike at intercontinental and medium range. The minimum launch range of this missile is 2 000 kilometers, and this is enough to break the American missile defense system in Europe. The United States objects to the deployment of this system on the grounds that this would be a violation of the INF Treaty. But such statements do not withstand criticism: the maximum launch range of the PC-26 exceeds 6 000 kilometers, which means that it is an intercontinental ballistic missile, but not a medium-range ballistic missile.

In view of the above, it becomes obvious that the United States is significantly lagging behind Russia in the development of land-based ICBMs. The United States has one, and a rather old intercontinental ballistic missile “Minuteman-3”, capable of carrying only one warhead. And the prospects for the development of a new model for it are very uncertain. In Russia, the situation is quite different. Ground-based ICBMs are updated regularly - in fact, the process of developing new missiles goes on and on. Each new ICBM is developed taking into account the enemy’s missile defense breakthrough, which is why the European missile defense project and the ground-based missile defense system on the main flight segment (the US missile defense system designed to intercept approaching combat units) will not be effective against Russian missiles in the foreseeable future.

The next article in this series will talk about underwater navy and bomber aviation USA and Russia. The final article will draw conclusions based on the information we collect.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/these-russian-nukes-are-better-americas-15926
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. tiredwithall
    tiredwithall April 28 2016 15: 11
    +13
    "With that said, it becomes clear that the United States is lagging far behind Russia in developing land-based ICBMs."

    Having a powerful fleet and sitting across the ocean is understandable and reasonable. But the Pentagon is not averse to getting financing in this direction either.
    1. Nevsky_ZU
      Nevsky_ZU April 28 2016 15: 15
      +20
      The United States has other types of weapons: "Maidans", "IS", etc.
      1. cniza
        cniza April 28 2016 15: 22
        +5
        Quote: Nevsky_ZU
        The United States has other types of weapons: "Maidans", "IS", etc.


        And they do not hesitate to use it wherever they want and when they want, however, it doesn’t work with Russia in any way.
        1. Ivan Slavyanin
          Ivan Slavyanin April 28 2016 15: 36
          +5
          So Russia does not need to be ashamed of its complexes: neither Iskander, nor Topol, nor Yarsov !!!!!!!
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Andrey K
        Andrey K April 28 2016 15: 30
        +9
        Yeah ... In terms of "podlok" in the form of coups and incitement, the United States is ahead of the rest of the world ...
        In second-hand Ukraine they "fight" to the last Ukrainian, in Syria to the last Syrian ...
        Ayda get your hands on it, because the blood is "native", not an "exclusive" nation ...
    2. Stalker.1977
      Stalker.1977 April 28 2016 15: 38
      +6
      Somewhat reminiscent of the situation when the SDI project was introduced, and the USSR was forced to build over-the-horizon radars, etc., but for amers it was a fake. And now we have a real fist, let them spend money on their missile defense, do not care, in the end this financial black hole will cover the US economy.
      1. CORNET
        CORNET April 28 2016 15: 44
        +13
        An argument is not appropriate here ... Whose nuclear weapons are better, we are unlikely to find out! There will be no one to compare ...
    3. Denis Obukhov
      Denis Obukhov April 28 2016 16: 20
      +1
      No need to scare Americans, they have elections on the nose.
    4. Denis Obukhov
      Denis Obukhov April 28 2016 16: 21
      +1
      I remember the old story is already pretty, staggered the author.
      There, in short, the inventor came to the king and offered a gun capable of penetrating any armor, after which he offered armor from this gun, then a shell piercing new armor.
      As a result, the king ordered to shake out all the patents from him, pay them and hang the bastard.))

      This race, as a repair, cannot be finished, only stopped.
      And this requires "non-resistance of the parties" according to Mechnikov.
      Is humanity doomed?
      Recently, I have been asking myself this question more and more often.
    5. Dam
      Dam April 28 2016 16: 54
      0
      Yes, we still have a lot of surprises in store for them.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. AdekvatNICK
    AdekvatNICK April 28 2016 15: 13
    +7
    But in printing money they are the best on the planet))
  4. kirieeleyson
    kirieeleyson April 28 2016 15: 22
    +1
    We always had a sword that pierced their shield in a hypothetical conflict, despite the fact that the Americans were the first to create a nuclear bomb.
  5. beer-youk
    beer-youk April 28 2016 15: 29
    +1
    Mine-based ballistic missiles without a powerful missile defense system are ordinary, easily-hit objects, just targets.
    1. Muvka
      Muvka April 28 2016 15: 34
      +6
      Quote: beer-youk
      Mine-based ballistic missiles without a powerful missile defense system are ordinary, easily-hit objects, just targets.

      And how do you think you can quietly hit the ICBM mines? Or do you think that you can quietly launch several thousand missiles in one gulp? Oh well.
    2. bk316
      bk316 April 28 2016 15: 43
      +11
      Quote: beer-youk
      Mine-based ballistic missiles without a powerful missile defense system are ordinary, easily-hit objects, just targets.

      Well, firstly, our missile defense is not the last in the world.
      And secondly, no one is going to shoot missiles across the ocean for another month.
      The nuclear triad is a deterrent weapon. Our triad is also a retaliatory weapon.
      The minute and the missiles are gone - hit the empty mines.
    3. shans2
      shans2 April 28 2016 15: 48
      +3
      in order to hit them, it is necessary to perform a direct hit, this time, 2 radars are built for this, so that when detecting launches on the territory of Russia, make an early launch to the aggressor, before the mines hit the warheads .....
      1. Muvka
        Muvka April 28 2016 16: 13
        0
        Quote: shans2
        in order to hit them, it is necessary to perform a direct hit, this time, 2 radars are built for this, so that when detecting launches on the territory of Russia, make an early launch to the aggressor, before the mines hit the warheads .....

        By the way, as far as I know, mines have installations that, if they detect a missile, shoot at it with a cloud of metal balls.
      2. Berber
        Berber April 28 2016 16: 41
        +1
        The fact that a sudden disarming strike is impossible in principle has already been calculated and proven. In the event of a direct conflict, the United States disappears from the world map unambiguously, we still have eastern Siberia and most of western. The question is why all this? Given that poker is the national psychology of Western analysts, I think it's a bluff. There are a number of indications that the US strategic offensive arms are not in perfect condition. If you put together everything that they do in this direction, you get complete nonsense.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 28 2016 16: 54
      +1
      Quote: beer-youk
      Mine-based ballistic missiles without a powerful missile defense system are ordinary, easily-hit objects, just targets.

      Not ABM, but SPRN.
      In the ideal case, a missile attack warning system should provide a retaliatory strike: that is, the time from detecting the launch of an enemy’s ICBM to the finish of their warheads should be longer than the time it takes to decide on the launch, bring the order, prepare the launch and the launch itself. Then the enemy will be able to hit only empty silos and already completed launch of the KP.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 28 2016 21: 21
        +1
        The SPRN system was created so that the country's leadership would have only 5 minutes to decide on the return launch of missiles - since the launch of all strategic missiles lasts for 10-15 minutes.
  6. karakuin
    karakuin April 28 2016 15: 36
    +2
    Let the Abamers scratch themselves.
  7. Yarik76
    Yarik76 April 28 2016 15: 50
    +4
    We are investing in Yarsi 'they are in the Maidans - let's see who will win?
  8. Berber
    Berber April 28 2016 16: 30
    +4
    This is another application for financing. The machine, called the military lobby, is shitty. Because it does not take into account the general economic situation of the United States, and of the world, respectively, since the economy is global. Despite the fact that they have a printing press, there is still not enough money. Simply put, the greed of the state defense industry knows no bounds. And he begins to devour the very fabric of the state.
  9. swetlana1
    swetlana1 April 28 2016 18: 03
    +10
    Not so simple...
    If our ICBMs (land-based) are the best in the world, then the Russian Federation would not spend 2020% in the GOZ-70 program on the modernization of strategic nuclear forces to the detriment of other weapons systems ...
    ABM or air defense (with S-500) will not be able to cover the entire territory of the country. Currently, three plants are working on the manufacture of air defense systems. Strange, and the United States this year will introduce a third plant for the production of air defense systems. Coincidence? Or are they also preparing to meet our warheads that have reached them?
    Let's look at our northern border - there is now only one air defense division deployed there - this is not enough, because This theater of operations is planned by Amers as the main one when it strikes at our facilities. It’s considered by their planning service that the mass launch of missiles along low trajectories at a distance of 50-100 km from our land border is difficult to fend off ... But, and WE are getting ready. And for the third year we are building up a military group there. By 2020, there will be about 40 ships with missile defense missiles in the United States and a third of these ships in the case of the first US strike (against us) will be in the waters of the Arctic to destroy our missiles. True, by 2020 ... 2022. new ICBMs with high-energy trajectories will enter the arsenal of the Russian Federation (this means that they can deliver gifts to the aggressor flying, for example, over Atarctica and intercepting them outside the territory of the United States will not be able to ...
    Unfortunately, there are no installations with balls near the silos ... And the aggressor’s warheads can hit the target quite accurately (and in order to increase the likelihood of defeat, they plan to hit each silo with two warheads).
    And the early warning system - of course we have a smart one ("a hand from the grave"), but it was developed in the last century (though modernized))).
    But the Americans believe that they will be able to hit our silos, mobile systems and submarines (in the database) at the first strike. And they are not fools, after all, that means they know what we do not know - ordinary townsfolk and forum users ...
    Well, our military and scientists are trying to "soften" their attempts.
    I completely agree with the opinion - we will never know who will win the nuclear war and whose ICBMs are steeper - we do not need all of this.
    In the "Bear Spear" command and staff exercise, the role of ground-based ICBMs was not so great. The main point is three - and the US is afraid of him most of all, because they do not know who is next to them - even if they are UNDIVIDERS .........
    Bear spear
    1. bk316
      bk316 April 28 2016 18: 53
      +2
      Quote: swetlana1
      If our ICBMs (ground-based) are the best in the world, then the Russian Federation would not spend 2020% in the GOZ-70 program on the modernization of strategic nuclear forces to the detriment of other weapons systems ..


      I explain, although this has long been chewed 100 times.

      1. Our land-based ICBMs the best (and this is already many years).
      2. We will modernize them so that they successfully resist the enemy’s missile defense. Do you understand? We are not competing with enemy ICBMs but with their missile defense. Therefore, we invest in their modernization, although they already the best.
      3. Our ICBMs, unlike theirs for retaliation. They adhere to the concept of a disarming strike, and we are guaranteed destruction. That is why they are improving, first of all, missile defense, and we are ICBMs, although they already the best.
      4. We have the main part of the triad onshore. Therefore our land-based ICBMs the best.
      5. We don’t need to cover our missiles with missile defense, we need a missile defense system, which is now being modernized, if not to say rebuilt (which Yeltsin and Gorbachev had safely collapsed). It's because our best ICBMs they’ll already fly away having received a signal from the SPRN, when enemy missiles fly up to the places of basing.

      So see?

      Thanks to the article for the author. But if you look carefully, the conclusion suggests itself, not just that our nuclear weapons are better, but that the ground component of the American nuclear triad is degrading. It is impossible to extend the service life indefinitely, is it now 40 years old, and when will it be 50-60? Obviously they are hoping for something else, I wonder what?
      1. zennon
        zennon April 28 2016 19: 19
        +4
        Quote: bk316
        the ground component of the American nuclear triad is degrading.

        In general, yes. But they have more bomber aircraft and a very powerful fleet of SSBNs. This negates our advantage in ground-based ICBMs. Mattress makers initially calculated by looking at the map that it would be more correct to call our planet "water" rather than "earth." , and given their number, it is simply not possible. They made a bet on this. They do not really count on the Minutemans.
        1. bk316
          bk316 April 28 2016 19: 54
          +3
          Quote: zennon
          they have more bomber aircraft and a very powerful fleet of SSBNs.

          Yes, I do not argue. The question is that both we and they once believed that nuclear forces should be just a triad, did they change their minds or what?
          By the way, with SSBNs, they are also not doing as well as I know their newest missile carrier will soon be 20 years old, but we are building it slowly ...
          1. zennon
            zennon April 28 2016 22: 48
            +4
            Quote: bk316
            The question is that both we and they once believed that nuclear forces should be just a triad, did they change their minds or what?

            This is a historical issue. Initially, in the early 60's, both we and they were feverishly trying to create a delivery vehicle. But they were the win-geography for them. Many bases in Germany, Italy, small Britain, Turkey, etc., allowed them they don’t bother with ICBMs, and we simply didn’t have a way out. Either we create powerful ICBMs or we die. But over time (creating SSBNs is much more difficult than ground ICBMs) they diversified their nuclear forces by placing them on nuclear submarines. directing the main forces precisely to these two components. And the ICBMs of them are something like a stepdaughter. We simply, by virtue of geography, improved them. Yes, they measure their money with them (and not only with them, but also half the world of the richest countries) we can not. Therefore, SSBN and we have less.
            Quote: bk316
            as far as I know, their newest missile carrier will soon be 20 years old and we are building it slowly ...

            Don’t worry about them. They are constantly upgrading their VS. How many years have the B-52 been in service? When was the last one released? But with all this they flew, they fly, and they will fly! You must not doubt that these bombers are all they changed their filling 15 times! And the modern B-52 is only outwardly the same as in the 50s. They can count grandmas! We send 17-18 year-old craftsmen to re-melt them ...
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 28 2016 21: 27
        +2
        SPRN - does not launch ballistic missiles - the president makes the decision to launch - through a nuclear case or through the General Staff.
  10. swetlana1
    swetlana1 April 28 2016 20: 08
    +7
    Our land-based ICBMs are the best
    although they are already the best
    although they are already the best
    the best
    This is because our best ICBMs will fly away after receiving a signal from the SPRN when enemy missiles fly up to their base locations.
    So see?

    You seem to be praying and reassuring yourself ... Everything is fine, everything is fine ...)))
    Was that already in 1941? Then, too, as a spell at all levels, it was said: "Our technique is the best and so on ..." and how did it end ...

    The best technique is one that can fulfill its tasks. If it is necessary to modernize it to carry out its tasks, this is an outdated technique. And all the types of ICBMs listed at the beginning of the discussion are new and their production will start from scratch or will begin soon. And what kind of financial means it is - scary to think - even in times of shortage of money in the country. Do you think the very best Supreme GK would have put in money for modernization? Of course not. It is necessary to make them capable of being comparable to combat the means of defeating a potential enemy. By 2022 ... 2024, the rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces should end. Then they will be the very best. (But the United States will also go forward in the fight against them).
    By the way, why do stupid Americans have ICBMs worse. And if you think about it? It's just that the flight time from US territory to ours is significantly longer than the same time from nuclear submarines located near our borders or off the coast of Europe or in the Asia-Pacific waters. There is no need to compare different things. The United States has focused on ICBMs, and they are not worse than ours (I would say better). And now they are focusing on hypersonic non-nuclear missiles capable of reaching the target low-low (and the torch from the engine is less noticeable by satellite detection systems and the northern border is not completely covered by the ground component of this system. focused only on the launch of ICBMs - we would have been bombed long ago.The system monitors many other elements of the enemy's military infrastructure (for example, the appearance of communications at the command post and communication centers that "come to life" some time before the strike, etc.). But if they know it common people - why don't the "overseas partners" know this and why won't they oppose it?
    And the last, if our ICBMs were the best and the enemy couldn’t do anything to them, then they wouldn’t start the reproduction of engines for the Tu-2011 Strategic Bomber since 160, in the near future their production of AF in the amount of 50 pieces would not be planned (with the addition of long-range lionfish with nuclear equipment), 8 SSBNs were not built (and are under construction). Once again I will say - it's not so simple in life and in weapons systems .......
  11. NordUral
    NordUral April 28 2016 20: 40
    +2
    Will we throw caps again? Quietly rearrange and say that they are very weak, do not touch us, otherwise we will be scared and fill our faces.
  12. Orionvit
    Orionvit April 28 2016 21: 06
    +2
    "First of all, it is expected that this missile will launch a warhead into a suborbital trajectory (it is somewhat shorter than the circular orbit, which is prohibited by international agreements)." I'm wondering, in the event of a nuclear strike (God forbid), someone will look at what orbits the warheads will launch?
  13. Orionvit
    Orionvit April 28 2016 21: 08
    +2
    Quote: Yarik76
    We are investing in Yarsi 'they are in the Maidans - let's see who will win?

    While they are us.
  14. Papapg
    Papapg April 28 2016 21: 29
    +2
    “A nuclear race is like two men standing waist-deep in gasoline. One has three matches, the other five. ”

    Something like this ... And on the buttons for starting weapons with nuclear warheads, you need to write - "Self-destruction, general". It is necessary to remind the West more often that they "cannot" live without us, or they don’t want to, like somewhere - ... and the living will envy the dead ...
  15. Ros 56
    Ros 56 April 29 2016 05: 00
    +4
    American snobbery snapped the striped ones themselves quite tangibly. While they ran around the globe with a torch and set fire to everything that was possible, ours, with clenched teeth, tried for beggarly wages in workshops and laboratories. The result is obvious, the whole world is surprised, striped scratch turnips, how can it be, because we are the most exceptional. So they were expelled.
  16. Nitarius
    Nitarius April 29 2016 05: 30
    +3
    We will definitely protect the United States from terrorists and put our tactical nuclear weapons right in Washington if necessary, I think that we will be able to protect the RIGHTS of ordinary Americans from terrorists and aliens!
  17. Fgrt
    Fgrt 1 May 2016 04: 22
    +4
    great what's the best. Only maybe more money to invest in the national economy?
  18. Jon
    Jon 2 May 2016 08: 22
    +2
    Quote: Nitarius
    We will definitely protect the United States from terrorists and put our tactical nuclear weapons right in Washington if necessary, I think that we will be able to protect the RIGHTS of ordinary Americans from terrorists and aliens!


    Very interestingly written !!