Military Review

Three myths about the "Mace"

275
Three myths about the "Mace"



Advertising is known to be the engine of progress. It has always been in the whole world. Except Russia. Here in maritime rocket production is heavily advertised ... regress. Or, if you call things in your own words, propaganda has replaced advertising. Moreover, the propaganda of non-existent superpowers of the new intercontinental ballistic missile "Bulava" clearly surpasses it - either because of the incompetence of the propagandists themselves, or because of the underestimation of the competence of those to whom it is addressed. In the near future, mass media should have a mass stuffing about another victory of the Bulava - “salvo shooting from the depth of 50 m is expected on the move with sea waves with 6 – 7 points”.

The first and only salvo with full ammunition — 16 RSM-54 liquid-fuel missiles — was carried out 15 years ago by the strategic missile submarine Novomoskovsk. The tests were carried out in order to check the "behavior" of the cruiser after he was freed from almost 90 tons of "jet" cargo replaced by sea water within 645 seconds. And the cruiser behaved five plus, and all the mass-dimensional models of warheads successfully "hit" conditional targets. This shooting became the world military-technical record of Soviet submariners. American submariners on board the Ohio dared to launch only four Trident-2 missiles with a total weight of just over 236 tons. Before the start of the August events in Moscow and the collapse of the USSR that followed after them, 12 days remained. Today at the naval navy Russia's launch of two missiles is already considered a "salvo".

But back to the Bulava. Whoever does not believe in her victory is a step out of the reader's order! These notes are not for you.

MYTH FIRST: BULAVA WILL REPLACE BLUE AND LINER


Let's start with information about the unsuccessful launches of two Bulava missiles at the end of 2015, from the submarine Vladimir Monomakh. This means that the condition established by the Minister of Defense of Russia (in 2013) for five successful launches of the Bulava missile, which must precede their adoption, has not been fulfilled. This fact makes it premature to discuss the issue of full-scale salvo firing. And in general a discussion about the fighting virtues of the Bulava. To smooth out the negative impression of her unsuccessful trials, former generals who became venerable military experts, as it were, are showing everyone the dulu: nakos, take a bite, the PCM-54 had even more unsuccessful test launches than the Bulava, and for convincingly give fantastic figures .

The reality is as follows.

RSM-54: the number of test launches from the ground stand and submarine - 58, including 17 unsuccessful (29,3%).

RSM-54 (“Sineva” and “Liner”): five test launches, which were carried out after the resumption of serial production of RSM-54 missiles in the Russian conditions, all launches were successful.

Mace: 25 launches, including 11 unsuccessful (44%).

It is appropriate to note here that if the resumption of the production of RSM-54 rockets had not been realized, and the creation of the Bulava missile corresponded to today's reality, then for several years Russia would have completely lacked naval strategic nuclear forces.

11 years ago, the author of these lines in his article entitled “The 2020 Project: A Land Without Missiles?” Predicted the Bulava a long and difficult path of creation. Alas, the gloomiest predictions came true. Today it is known that the submarines of the 667BDRM project, armed with RSM-54 missiles, can carry combat duty up to 2025 – 2030 as part of the North-West group of naval strategic forces. And the existence of the Northeastern faction, starting with 2016, will depend on the actual completion of the development of the Bulava missiles.

Further, it is necessary to dwell on the statement (forecast) of the “fathers” of the Bulava that liquid ICBMs cannot compete with solid propellants “neither in the duration of the active section, nor in the survivability of the complex in a retaliatory strike, nor in resistance in the active section to the impact of damaging factors missile defense ". This, to put it mildly, is a great delusion.

In the contractual process of limiting and reducing strategic offensive weapons, the main controlled parameters of the missiles were taken: the number of deployed missiles, the number of warheads on the rocket and the throw-in weight delivered by the missile to the specified firing range or demonstrated in real launch. At the same time, the throw-in weight of modern missiles with a divided head is defined as the weight of the last stage of the missile, which delivers warheads (warheads, warheads) to various aiming points. The weight to be dropped includes: warheads, countermeasures (overcoming) of the missile defense, propulsion system, control system equipment and structural elements that are not separated from the last (often called - combat) stage of the rocket.


Novomoskovsk is still the world record holder in salvo firing with ballistic missiles.

Throw weight is the most important parameter characterizing the combat effectiveness of the rocket, as well as its energy capabilities. The ratio of the missile throwing weight delivered to the 10 thousandth of a kilometer range to the launching weight of the rocket by intersectoral documents (in the USSR and in Russia) is called the technical level of the rocket.

For missiles with a "bus scheme" of serial dilution of warheads at sighting points, the weight (mass) of the breeding system, the onboard control system is determined during design and for a particular missile can be assumed constant. In this regard, the task is to determine the rational weight (power) of the warhead and the rational weight of countermeasures for the breakthrough of missile defense. It is clear that for missiles with limited throwing weight it is necessary to find a rational combination of the power of the warhead and the weight of countermeasures. And the implementation of enhanced countermeasures on such missiles leads either to a reduction in the number of warheads, or to a reduction in their power and weight.

MYTH SECOND: POSSIBILITIES TO OVERCOME ANY PRO


Let us consider how the task of equipping modern Russian strategic missiles with anti-missile defenses is solved or is being solved.

The Sinev and Liner marine liquid missiles with a predictable service life of up to 2030 provided the opportunity to re-equip by the number of warheads: from four middle-class power with anti-missile defenses to small-class power with different sets of countermeasures (false goals). The cast weight (mass) of these missiles is about 8 thousand kg.

For modern solid-state offshore missiles "Bulava", the start of combat duty of which was to be held in 2014 – 2015 (actually in 2016 – 2017), the predicted service life is up to 2050 – 2060. It should be expected to carry out modernization work, including on countermeasures. At the same time, the possibilities of modernization will be limited by the size of the drop weight (mass) - 1150 kg and the possibility of its increase. Most likely, this means that an increase in breakthrough qualities will be possible only by reducing the number of warheads, since warheads of a small power class have already been used.

For modern land-based liquid rockets - “Voyevoda” with a cast weight of 8800 kg and “Stiletto” with a cast weight of 4350 kg - the predicted service life of 2020 – 2022 years. In this connection, no work should be done to modernize the combat equipment of these missiles.

For land solid-fuel missiles with a monoblock head part "Topol M", as well as "Yars" with a split head part, modern means of countering are provided. However, the implementation of a more effective counter-missile defense in subsequent upgrades will be limited to a small throwing weight (mass) - about 1200 – 1300 kg and will lead either to a reduction in the number of warheads of a small power class, or to the use of a (monoblock) unit of the middle power class.

Mine-based Sarmat missiles (of the “Voevoda” type) with 8-ton, for example, a drop weight, can provide effective protection against missile defense, provided that from 2 to 4 tons of drop weight are allocated for 10 protection means of increased or medium warheads power classes.

The main results of these considerations are summarized in the table “Information on strategic nuclear deterrent forces”.

These circumstances lead to the conclusion that in the future, guaranteed strategic deterrence can be achieved if there are missiles with increased drop weight in the composition of strategic nuclear forces. Such missiles are able to adequately counteract projected missile defense options. The survivability of such missiles in the stationary base-to-launch variant can be ensured by a twofold increase in fortification resistance when upgrading existing stationary mines, as well as anti-missile defense of the starting positions and positional areas with existing or known means.

As for the mobile home-based strategic detergents, their ability to counter missile defense is less due to the low weight of solid-fuel missiles (less than 1,5 tons). This may require the cost of additional deployment of missiles and exit from the process of contractual limitations of strategic offensive arms.

In this regard, the ongoing transition to solid-fuel offshore rockets has the disadvantage associated with a decrease in the drop weight, which is illustrated by the table of characteristics of Russian and American naval missiles.

The main and very sad conclusion from this table is the fact that the Russian solid-fuel offshore missile industry is lagging behind the American one by almost 40 years, which follows from a comparison of the Trident-1 and Bulava missiles, which have comparable tactical and technical characteristics and almost identical conventional level , inferior to the modern American technical level (“Trident-2”) by about 20%, and the Russian liquid sea missile RSM-54 (including the “Blue” and “Liner” versions) - one and a half times.

MYTH THREE: ADVANTAGES OF SOLID FUEL MISSILES


Next, we will dwell on the statement about the advantage of solid-fuel missiles in the duration of the active segment, survivability in retaliation, stamina on the active section. Most likely, such an assertion is intended for non-rocket science specialists. There is no doubt that the duration of the active site for solid-fuel rockets is traditionally less than that for liquid rockets. But when can this factor be decisive? For example, after the appearance of space echelons of missile defense ("Star Wars"). However, in this case, liquid rockets can fend off "space" interceptions, for example, at the expense of dashed trajectories (turned off - turned on the cruise engine), at the expense of trajectories that maneuver in an arbitrary direction, as well as by reducing the time of the active section during new design.

With regard to resistance in the active area to damaging factors, today all customer requirements are accepted and implemented by developers. If these requirements will increase, the increased energy of liquid-propellant rockets will help their implementation.

OPINION MARSHALA



The resumption of the serial production of the upgraded RSM-54 missiles made it possible to preserve the combat potential of the Russian NSNF. Photos from the official website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

In conclusion of my notes I will appeal for support to the indisputable authority of the only “Marshal for Industry” defense minister Dmitry Ustinov. In 2013, the Stolichnaya Encyclopedia publishing house published the book Russian Tales of Missiles. In 2005, Assistant Defense Minister Dmitry Ustinov, Igor Vyacheslavovich Illarionov, told the author of this book the following history. “Shortly before Ustinov’s death, Illarionov visited him in the hospital. Talked about current affairs. Suddenly the minister said:

- You know, and after all Vitya was right.

- What are you talking about, Dmitry Fedorovich? Asked Illarionov in surprise.

- I say, Vitya Makeev was right when he rested with all his might and did not want to build a solid-fuel machine. I am here in the House about a lot of thought. We then bent it cool. And in vain ...

Ustinov thought. Illarionov broke the silence.

- But why, Dmitry Fedorovich? You always believed in solid fuel technology!

- I still believe. Only to the Americans we do not grow. And there was nothing to push. Our destiny is liquid fuel. With our capabilities, you can’t do anything better.

Ustinov again thought.

- And you and I, Igor, have driven solid fuel. They almost burst out. Vitya and Misha Yangel did great cars. And for industry, and for the army, and for the fleet ... "

FORECAST AND REALITY


The creation of the RT-2 rocket (under the START Treaty - PC-12, according to the NATO classification - SS-13 mod. 1 Savage), which was in service with the Strategic Missile Forces from 1969 to 1994 a year, led to an increase in transported weights. Liquid missiles of that time were transported to the starting position without fuel and refueled after loading into the mine. The RT-2 (RT-2P) missile was delivered separately to the combat launch position: in one container the first stage (weight about 35 tons), and in the other - the coupled second and third stages. Technical solutions to the problem were found, but for delivery to the starting position, improved roads and corresponding transport units were required.

Creation of an offshore solid-fuel rocket P-39 (according to the START Treaty - PCM-52, according to the NATO classification - SS-N-20 Sturgeon) with a launch mass of 90 t required the construction of a new basing system, the transition from "wheel" to "railway" missile transportation, New crane equipment for loading heavy rockets and more. The work was delayed and was not completed during the Soviet era. In the Russian period, the operation of the P-39 missiles was stopped ahead of time, and its carriers — five heavy submarine cruisers of the Typhoon system’s 941 project — were disposed of or being prepared for recycling, another one, Dmitry Donskoy, was re-equipped for the Bulava test platform.

Of course, all the problems of exploitation of both sea and land, stationary and mobile solid-fuel missiles were solved by domestic developers, but they demanded both increased costs and increased terms of creation. One of the findings of the developers of the first domestic intercontinental ballistic missiles is that the solid-propellant rocket engine is a luxury that is available only to rich countries with highly developed science and economics. But here's the trick: even such a rich country as the USA buys its liquid-propellant rocket engines from Russia and installs them on its rockets.

Recently at a congressional hearing, US Deputy Secretary of Defense for Procurement and Technology Frank Kendall warned that a premature US failure to use the Russian rocket engine RD-180 would cost the Pentagon more than 1 billion dollars, and American companies could create their own engine 2021 of the year . So do we need to chase after the American fashion for solid-fuel missiles, if our liquid ones are just as good, and in some cases even better? Of course, this is a rhetorical question also because the government has invested billions of rubles in the development of the Bulava and the creation of a carrier for it - the strategic submarines of the Borey 955 project.

It can be stated that today in Russia there are different opinions, different approaches, different possibilities, but, unfortunately, there is no competent, fair and unbiased arbiter on strategic rocket production.



Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2016-05-20/8_bulava.html
275 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 22 May 2016 07: 11
    +35
    I agree that liquid rockets are still more efficient than solid rockets and are not subject to a gradual decrease in traction during fuel production. As a matter of fact, because of the amplification, they have become even more durable. At least liquid fuels are not subject to aging. But it is also more expensive by itself, and requires a higher production culture, of which one engine costs TNA.
    The mace is also a good rocket for its class, in vain they will throw kakahami at it, in another country they would be madly proud of it. And she has a chip with a low ballistic trajectory, as well as hypersonic blocks in theory they will stand on it.
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 22 May 2016 07: 47
      +50
      I don’t understand, the author demands from Bulava comparable characteristics with Trident-2 with a mass of 20 tons less and smaller?
      All problems with the Mace can be solved if the production culture is appropriate and if highly skilled workers will make missiles and not work at private enterprises.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 22 May 2016 08: 33
        +9
        I’m talking about the same, the dimensions are smaller, the weight is less, the part to be thrown is accordingly smaller, quite on the level. Moreover, the Trident-2 as I heard the maximum range goes far from full loading. wassat
        1. ammunition
          ammunition 22 May 2016 18: 13
          +20
          Quote: kugelblitz
          I’m talking about the same, the dimensions are smaller, the weight is less, the part to be thrown is accordingly smaller, quite on the level. Moreover, the Trident-2 as I heard the maximum range goes far from full loading.


          1) The Americans did not have and do not have a liquid engine, they still buy from us and even from Ukraine.
          Their solid rockets are not from a good life.
          2) Our Mace - Too not from a good life, but because in 90 our plants and technologies of liquid rockets were deliberately destroyed. For example, the production of sealed capsules. And the new political leadership (Putin) did not want to remain unarmed.
          3) Now managed to restore the basic technology. But! The mace has almost played its positive role. This time!
          And secondly, we managed to make good progress in solid fuels. So - it’s a pity to completely abandon the Mace.
          Mace (or Mace-M .. or Mace-M3) will take its reasonable niche.
          And this is good. There will be more room for political and military maneuver. wink
          1. cap
            cap 22 May 2016 19: 29
            +1
            ammunition (1) RU Today, 18:13 ↑ New
            Their solid rockets are not from a good life.


            You are absolutely right.
            Why you probably know for yourself. drinks
            1. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 23 May 2016 12: 04
              +5
              a solid propellant rocket engine is a luxury accessible only to rich countries with highly developed science and economics. But here's the trick: even a rich country like the United States buys its liquid-propellant rocket engines from Russia and installs them on its missiles.
              Something I did not understand the author’s thoughts. A clear contradiction in one paragraph (according to the author). In the beginning, the thesis that solid fuel is only for the most developed countries. Which in the framework of the article implies that Russia is a loser. In the next sentence - that the West is a loser, because despite the highest development (solid fuel complexes), they are not able to acquire their own liquid systems. That is, this is a phenomenon of an even higher technological order, which is still too tough for them.
              Either you want to rewrite the entire paragraph, or the author himself vaguely understands what he wants to say.
              1. Signore Tomato
                Signore Tomato 14 November 2016 12: 47
                0
                Quote: abrakadabre
                ... Something I did not understand the author’s thoughts. A clear contradiction in one paragraph (according to the author). In the beginning, the thesis that solid fuel is only for the most developed countries. Which in the framework of the article implies that Russia is a loser. In the next sentence - that the West is a loser, because despite the highest development (solid fuel complexes), they are not able to acquire their own liquid systems. That is, this is a phenomenon of an even higher technological order, which is still too tough for them.
                Either you want to rewrite the entire paragraph, or the author himself vaguely understands what he wants to say.



                I noticed it too. Moreover, this "dualism" of the author is observed repeatedly throughout the article.
              2. adept666
                adept666 27 September 2017 14: 51
                0
                Something I did not understand the author’s thoughts.
                And this is all from the fact that the author does not understand the essence of the issue at all and collected the opinions of motley "experts". And instead of collecting, and most importantly, creating your own myths, I’d go a little deeper into the subject ...
                1: Combat duty and preparation for launch on rockets with liquid propellant rocket engines are more difficult and dangerous even with ammunized tanks (requires more qualified personnel), storage (creation and maintenance of the necessary infrastructure), and transportation, too. ICBMs on turbojet engines (or solid propellant rocket engines ... as you like) also have a lot of problems, but much less than amyl-heptyl rockets and other boiling fuels. Therefore, on the OTRK and mobile systems of the Strategic Missile Forces rockets used / are rockets on solid propellant rocket engines (with few exceptions)
                2: The author's mace does not reach Trident 2? Unexpectedly, of course, only the author for some reason did not bother to look at the difference in the mass of these two products, so it was 2 tons heavier than the club by 23 tons. And its vaunted casting weight as low as almost 2800 is, as it were, not for a maximum range of 11 km, but only for 200 ... And now, simple mathematics: 7800 from 7800 is 11% less in range, respectively, a lot of useful the load of 200 falls by about the same percentage, by a simple proportion it can be obtained that 30,4 tons are thrown at 11 km 200 (this is not accurate, but in general +/- 11 tons). Mace at 200 throws 2. Question: how much can she throw at 1949? 50 from 9300 1150 has a difference of ~ 11%. Again, in proportion we get 200 kg. Here we also need to deal with the term abandoned weight, which is stipulated in certain interstate documents, but we will not climb into the wilds. In total, with a mass of 9300 tons per 11 thousand km, the Bulava throws (estimated) ~ 200 kg, Trident II for the same range of 17 kg with a mass of 954,5 tons. Accordingly, 36,8 is heavier by 11,2%. From here we recalculate the mass of the payload with hypothetically equal masses of carriers: 955 kg. Those. if 1950 were in the mass-dimensional parameters of the Mace, it would unexpectedly carry about the same payload. It is clear that the calculation is very clumsy, there are a lot of nuances, but in general, the mass of abandoned payloads is approximately the same! In addition, the club has the possibility of maneuvering in the ACCELERATION section (and precisely due to greater energy) + a quasi-ballistic (flat) flight path, and not the usual pitch program like Sineva (and any missile with Russian Railways, because they would have to gain vertical speed not just obscurely in the air), so calculating the flight path is more difficult and therefore more difficult to understand where to wait for it (also maneuvering) blanks. And the fact that the Bulava passes the acceleration section 59,1-2 times faster than Sineva is, as it were, also a trifle? The author, as it were, does not admit it is possible that the methods for breaking through the ABM system are also being improved, and what stood before is not required to stand AFTER. The same electronic warfare systems have become more powerful and compact, the heads themselves are also being modernized, etc. The only thing Trident II is better about is reliability, but it is multiplied by experience, which we have little.
                3: Ustinov, of course, is a personality and authority with a capital letter, but the truth is that the solid propellant rocket engines are not only on ICBMs, but it’s very difficult and costly to create cool mixed fuel and taking into account our budget this was possible only within the framework of improving ICBMs, but it is also necessary and OTRK, MANPADS, SAM, ATGM, explosives, etc. Or will we also do all this on heptyl? The basis of our Strategic Rocket Forces is Sarmat / Voevoda (everything else is an addition) and it will be on the liquid-propellant rocket engine and it will be made by those who know how to make such missiles in our country better than all - Makeeva mall. And since the nuclear submarine, albeit a large but mobile complex, is absolutely correct that it will be on missiles with turbojet engines and it is correct that Makeevtsev was not loaded with two new topics at the same time, because you will catch more than one chasing two hares.
      2. forumow
        forumow 22 May 2016 09: 05
        +16
        That's it! In addition, if the developers, and most importantly the customers, considered the casting weight to be insufficient, they would have designed / ordered SLBMs with a larger launch weight and, accordingly, a larger launch vehicle. There was experience, as well as a reserve of carrying capacity of carriers. Boats pr. 955 were originally designed for the modernized R-39UTTKh, weighing ~ 90 tons.
        Conclusion: the abandoned weight of the customer is satisfied!

        The article is the order of competitors or their sympathizers, who, relying on the failures with Bulava, think that something will break off for them.
        1. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 22 May 2016 09: 19
          +12
          Quote: forumow
          Article - ordering of competitors or associates

          Competitors are now not up to liquid missiles for submarines, their Sarmat is burning on time, and even the tasks of booster blocks for launch vehicles. The article is rather banal hacking and not a desire to study the sores of either side. I personally like both the Liner and the Mace!
          1. Inok10
            Inok10 22 May 2016 13: 55
            +26
            Quote: kugelblitz
            The article is rather banal hacking and not a desire to study the sores of either side. I personally like both the Liner and the Mace!

            ... minus the author ... a good phrase from the movie "Constantine": ... There is always a catch! ... and it really is ... and as always in the most conspicuous place ... from the article:
            The abandoned weight includes: warheads, anti-missile defense countermeasures (overcoming), propulsion system, control system equipment and structural elements, which are not separated from the last (often called - combat) stage of the rocket.
            ... alas, ah, the author ... this is true for Trident 1 and Trident 2 ... but no less for Russian ICBMs ... this is for Americans the breeding platform is not shared with the third stage ... we are divided and is by the same combat unit ... thus:
            Trident 2 - 2000 kg. together with the third stage
            Mace - 1150 kg. - no third step
            ... feel the difference? ... so how many Trident 2 casts in its pure form is still a "big American secret" ... laughing
        2. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 23 May 2016 12: 11
          0
          Conclusion: the abandoned weight of the customer is satisfied!
          In addition to the actual cast weight, to assess the adequacy of the performance characteristics it is worth comparing other combat and not only characteristics: air defense, power ratio, etc. Yes, even the overhead of operation and maintenance. Shoot something when she’s still, and need to spend money on maintenance every day. And if according to this parameter a new rocket with satisfactory performance characteristics will be much cheaper, then why not?
          1. CALL.
            CALL. 24 May 2016 12: 11
            0
            http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2016-05-20/8_bulava.html

            Source: - Independent Military Review. Founder: - Independent newspaper. Or, as they call it, Nezaviska. Enough to read the materials to understand what substance this product is.
      3. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 22 May 2016 09: 39
        +22
        Let's compare Trident-2 and 3M-37. Here, Trident-2 is 20 tons heavier with similar characteristics. At the same time, Trident-2 began to be developed earlier than the RSM-54, and was adopted later. Regarding the simplicity of the production of solid-propellant rockets - something we ourselves could not do in those 80s of equipment for winding steps, we had to "over the hill" to purchase equipment for production, sort of like silos (there is this information on the Internet) and adapt for production "solid" products. When they showed a film about the production of "Bulava", they showed how the bottom of the product is made. Something of simplicity is not visible there, they are cooked by hand in a special pressure chamber in an argon atmosphere in spacesuits. I assure you that "liquid" ones are also not easy to manufacture, but without such "hemorrhoids", especially the technology has been developed.
        Regarding the transfer of the topic to Solomonov, it’s just a struggle for cash flows, and as a result, to save Bulava, I still had to attract specialists from the Makeev Design Bureau. Here is an excerpt from an article by one of the former leaders of the military mission:
        “In 1999, thanks to the titanic efforts of KRASMASH General Director Viktor Gupalov, there was hope that the RSM-54U would resume production at the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant. It was at this time that I received instructions from the head of the Naval Aviation Administration to prepare a report on the impossibility of carrying out such work with reference to that KMZ hadn’t been manufacturing rockets for several years now, and the whole cooperation was even more so. I realized that with my hands the opponents of liquid rockets want to prevent getting this order. I sent my deputies to the cooperation enterprises: one to the Urals, the other to Moscow and St. Petersburg. A few days later I had the minutes of the meetings of the leaders of these enterprises and the military academy of the Ministry of Defense with them about their readiness to start production resumption and with concrete proposals for the organization of work. That's when I sent my report, together with these protocols, to the head of the Navy URAF about readiness of Krasmash and enterprises of cooperation for the resumption of rocket production, which Paradise was later called “Sineva”. The conclusion is simple: we must serve our country and, defending the interests of the state, not be afraid of anyone. "
        Even then, we could lose the whole division of the RPKSN 667BDRM. Moreover, one hull was driven into re-equipment under the carrier of ultra-small boats. Since 1999, it has not yet entered service. In another, as a crime, this is not called. Now on TV they again began to publicize the Solomon office. Already not even funny.

        Any Chinese, Indians, Iranians would gladly produce for themselves such an "outdated" product as the RSM-54, but something doesn't work out. Are your hands crooked? I don’t think so. And what does not work out for the Americans? All conditions were originally there. If in those distant post-war years we got only products, then they got all the "brains" led by Brown.
        By the way, the RSM-54 did not have a single unsuccessful launch during operation (I don’t think the first Behemoth, there were non-standard products there). And all sorts of incidents, by the way, too.
        1. Gogia
          Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 17
          +9
          I agree with you completely !!! Sineva - this was the top of our engineering !!!
          It was easy to understand that "Teplotekhnika" was lobbied by Muscovites, and the Makeyevskaya office was driven deep into the "Gudok", although only Makeyev in Miass had a pool for field tests and all the infrastructure !!!! Plus vast experience in creating underwater-based liquid-based ICBMs !!! We caught up with Sineva, and the Mace ate so much money that Makeevtsy would have developed 2 or 3 new missiles !!!!!!!!!
          Dad worked with Makeev for 3 years after the institute and still communicates with his comrades from time to time. The Makeyevites are very offended at the Moscow Region, all the more the humpback assisted in the destruction of the technological base in Miass under the leadership of "partners". You don't need to listen to our generals. They are not scientists, and many of them do not have a specialized education and "carry the magnetron current in buckets"!
          1. Andrey NM
            Andrey NM 22 May 2016 18: 53
            +2
            Quote: Gogia
            You don't need to listen to our generals. They are not scientists, and many of them do not have a specialized education and "carry the magnetron current in buckets"!

            Well, not all. As an example, Admiral Novoselov Fedor Ivanovich - a legend and a head! Health and many years to him.
      4. bmv04636
        bmv04636 22 May 2016 10: 01
        +6
        as I understand it, the mace is produced in the same place as poplars and yars on poplars because there are no complaints. And it seems to me that all the problems were laid from the very beginning, when they gave the design of this rocket to those who were not belmes in the marine theme, and got what they got.
        1. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 22 May 2016 10: 12
          +3
          The mace is the development of the Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering (MIT), naturally they will use their best practices. But about the fact that the development of Makeev’s design bureau will be kept secret, I don’t agree. It is rather a matter of the fundamental difference between missiles.
          For example, preparation for the start of what is worth.
          1. AK64
            AK64 22 May 2016 10: 15
            0
            For example, preparation for the start of what is worth.

            And what is it worth?

            Both missiles are ready for immediate launch.
            1. kugelblitz
              kugelblitz 22 May 2016 10: 24
              +4
              Quote: AK64
              Both missiles are ready for immediate launch.


              Liquid ones are a little longer, due to restrictions on equalizing the pressure of sea water and the shaft itself. However, solid-fuel housing is more durable than thin-walled liquid construction elements.
              1. AK64
                AK64 22 May 2016 10: 28
                0
                Did not know.
                How much longer by the hour?
                1. kugelblitz
                  kugelblitz 22 May 2016 10: 36
                  0
                  Definitely not interested, but this is a known fact.
              2. Andrey NM
                Andrey NM 22 May 2016 10: 49
                +8
                Dear, for liquid and solid, the start is different in that the liquid exits under its engines, and the solid is first pushed out by pressure accumulators, these are either powder gases or steam. But to open the shaft cover, pressure must still be equalized, and in order to prevent the membrane from blowing, I suspect that pressurization is needed. The difference is not big.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 22 May 2016 10: 58
                  0
                  Dear, for liquid and solid, the start is different in that the liquid exits under its engines, and the solid is first pushed out by pressure accumulators, these are either powder gases or steam. But to open the shaft cover, pressure must still be equalized, and in order to prevent the membrane from blowing, I suspect that pressurization is needed. The difference is not big.

                  Thank you.

                  About "on the engines" I have some doubts: I was always sure that both of them are pushed out by pressure.

                  And by the way, the cavitator also goes in front of the rocket (moreover, for ice it is armor-piercing. That is, is it always the same? Armor-piercing, because ice).
                  1. region58
                    region58 22 May 2016 12: 41
                    +2
                    Quote: AK64
                    And by the way, the cavitator also goes in front of the rocket (moreover, for ice it is armor-piercing. That is, is it always the same? Armor-piercing, because ice).

                    There was a project for launching from under the ice (D-19UTTKh "Bark" complex, R-39UTTKh / 3M91 / RSM-52V / RSM-52-2 missile - SS-NX-28). Refused. The risk is great. We stopped at the fact that the boat is either looking for a wormwood or breaking the ice with its hull.
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 22 May 2016 13: 14
                      0
                      I will not insist on ice. That such an idea was, I know that. Anyway, the cavitator goes before the rocket. In principle, you can also find photos of launches where a cavitator is visible in front of a rocket.

                      Again, I will not argue that the cavitator has always been for all missiles.
                  2. Andrey NM
                    Andrey NM 22 May 2016 15: 02
                    +4
                    Quote: AK64
                    About "on engines" I have doubts:

                    Rest assured, the information is accurate :). The cavitators were on the R-31, the boat was the only one, converted from 667a, "lived" in Gadzhievo. And on the 941 project there was an ARSS (depreciation rocket launch system). On this piece, the product "hung" in the mine, and after leaving the water ARSS was taken away. And we did not have much more solid fuel products on the ships in operation. Well, they could not jump out from under the ice, they need to look for wormwood. Moreover, the product was thrown out by a powder pressure accumulator, where there was about 450 kg of charge, but the engine was still started at the mine cut. But for the Americans, the rocket flies to a certain height, thirty meters, it is also pushed out with steam gas, and then the engine starts.
                    But in general, how do you imagine a break in ice with a rocket? And if you can’t guess with the thickness?
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 22 May 2016 15: 13
                      -1
                      how do you imagine a rocket ice break? And if you can’t guess with the thickness?


                      So the Cavitator breaks the ice, not the rocket itself.
                      And the thickness of the ice: in principle, an echo sounder (the same sonar) can be measured.
                      1. Andrey NM
                        Andrey NM 22 May 2016 16: 28
                        +5
                        The cavitator is designed to generate a gas cavity to reduce resistance in the underwater section, figuratively - you get a bunch of bubbles in which the rocket goes .. And with an echo sounder you get the distance to the bottom edge of the ice, and that’s it. And they can’t measure the thickness of ice. You can only approximately calculate the thickness of the underwater part of the ice by the difference in depth and distance obtained by the echo sounder (the device for these purposes has a slightly different name, but this principle).
                      2. AK64
                        AK64 22 May 2016 16: 41
                        0
                        The cavitator is designed to generate a gas cavity in order to reduce resistance in the underwater section, figuratively - it turns out a bunch of bubbles in which the rocket goes ..

                        Rather, one big bubble, in which the rocket goes.

                        By the way, with what model (well, or approximately since what time) did cavitators begin to use?

                        And with a fishfinder you get the distance to the bottom edge of the ice, and that’s it. And they can’t measure the thickness of ice. You can only approximately calculate the thickness of the underwater part of the ice by the difference in depth and distance obtained by the echo sounder (the device for these purposes has a slightly different name, but this principle).

                        it depends on sensitivity: through the ice layer, there will be two responses: strong from the bottom edge and weak a little later from the top. Well, if the sensitivity is sufficient, then the second can be detected and separated from the first.

                        Well, in theory it is. But in practice, I’d better listen to you. (I'm a theorist)
                      3. Andrey NM
                        Andrey NM 22 May 2016 18: 20
                        +2
                        Yes, nothing there from the top will not be reflected. Homogeneous ice without "icicles" below is a rarity. And if we assume what will be reflected, then the reflected one will go back through the layers of density jumps and will be lost. This should be consulted by acousticians. But this way you can only calculate the thickness of ice immersed in water, and there can also be a lot above the water, such as hummocks, porosity, etc. There are a lot of photos for example on the Internet. It seems that the calculated thickness is one, but after surfacing to the upper edge of a piece of ice you cannot jump.
                        Cavitators were on the R-31, for sure, on the 3M-65 ARSS too, but none on the liquid ones. By the way, on "Shkval" there is such a "patch" in front also for this, but there a cavitation "bag" is formed.
                      4. rudolff
                        rudolff 22 May 2016 19: 13
                        +3
                        I'll put in my five cents. The echo-meter recorder writes a curve of the lower ice profile, but the determination of the ice thickness is in principle possible, albeit with a relative (very!) Reliability. The pulse of the signal is generated by a two-frequency, bass and treble. The echo reflected from the water / ice or water / air boundary is also two-frequency. But there is also a fading lateral with a delay. The low-frequency part of the signal is also reflected from the ice / air interface, while the high-frequency part is completely attenuated in the ice medium. Here on this low-frequency echo-sidewall and measure the thickness of the ice. But this is all in the operating instructions for the ELM, but in practice ... plus or minus and how much!
                      5. Andrey NM
                        Andrey NM 22 May 2016 19: 47
                        +2
                        Rudolph, I no longer talked about this paper tape :) ... You can also stare at NOR, but that's all, as they say, two bast shoes on the map :). Was that your jamming? The theme of the day is like a breath of youth, but now as an Assistant Professor from "Gentlemen of Fortune", I remember here, I don't remember here ...
                      6. rudolff
                        rudolff 22 May 2016 20: 22
                        +3
                        That's for sure! Type, location by gravitational and magnetic fields! There is a gravimeter, a magnetometer, and the location ... those same bast shoes on the map.
                        I have remembered these echo sounders, echo sound meters for life. At the very first BS fucked in all respects and with special cynicism! I was a KENG, and on the shift I took the initiative, gave the command to turn on the echo sounder. Without permission and without the knowledge of the officer in charge. And there was a senior on board. Like, lit a ship, disruption of a combat mission, well, etc. In the end, everything worked out, but I remember ... Until the end of the BS, any active path included how it launched a rocket in Moscow! good
      5. Gogia
        Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 18
        +1
        So much for the specialist’s answer!
    2. Operator
      Operator 22 May 2016 11: 45
      0
      Liquid fuel in Sineva's tanks is constantly under pressure of about 10 atmospheres - you can start at least from a depth of 100 meters (in fact, they start from 30).

      Minutes readiness of missiles for launch.
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 22 May 2016 12: 12
        +6
        Andrey, don’t tell anyone like that anymore. There is no such pressure there. And the starting depth is limited, over 55 meters out - climbed out of the corridor. Willingness by other things is provided.
        1. Operator
          Operator 22 May 2016 12: 17
          0
          I agree to "the fuel in Sineva's tanks is under pressure."
      2. opus
        opus 22 May 2016 22: 03
        +5
        Quote: Operator
        Liquid fuel in Sineva's tanks is constantly under pressure of about 10 atmospheres - you can start at least from a depth of 100 meters (

        what a stupid thing.
        1. tanks are not inflated (who needs it? To keep poison from metal without contact)
        2. Tank pressurization - it’s not connected with the start depth!
        -tna gives 150-300atm
        - the depth of the launch is "cut" by the pressure at the nozzle exit (you will get worn out with the nozzle nozzles) and the duration of the "path" mbr in an environment not typical of mbr
        1. Operator
          Operator 23 May 2016 00: 10
          +1
          The fuel tanks of "Sineva" are still inflated, although not by 10 atmospheres - I have already recovered, slow down, however laughing

          Tank pressurization is used for temperature stabilization of a liquid oxidizing agent - nitrogen tetroxide (the boiling point in one atmosphere is equal to 21 degrees Celsius, with increased pressure the boiling point increases).

          In addition, the boost increases the strength of thin-walled fuel tanks (they are the rocket body) for compression both from the thrust of the rocket engine and from hydrodynamic / aerodynamic resistance when the rocket emerges in an aqueous medium and in flight in air.
          1. opus
            opus 23 May 2016 13: 23
            +3
            Quote: Operator
            The fuel tanks of "Sineva" are still inflated, although not by 10 atmospheres - I have already recovered, slow down, however

            1. P-29 *** TANKS ARE NOT INFLATABLE. BEFORE YOU START PRE-STARTING PREPARATION. Pressure = atmospheric
            This is stupidity bordering on crime
            2. Supercharging occurs during prelaunch training when the team starts
            -When preliminary pressurization of tanks during the fifth launch in March 1972 began the destruction of the rocket and the mixing of fuel components. The commander of K-145 captain 2 rank Yu.Illarionov ordered the immediate ascent and opening of the cover of the emergency mine.

            -In the process preparation of the rocket for launch was carried out boosting the rocket tanks
            R-29RMUZ rocket will use autonomous boost tanks.
            .

            If the command "cancel" has passed, the ICBM is removed to the plant

            Quote: Operator
            Tank pressurization is used for temperature stabilization of a liquid oxidizing agent - nitrogen tetraoxide

            For the PL, this is not relevant. There is no storage in "unprotected soil" with temperature extremes.
            Opa was at low temperatures.
            Quote: Operator
            In addition, boost increases the strength of thin-walled fuel tanks.

            Yes .... Only here's what to do with "your boost" when the ICBM passes 35 meters under water, to the surface, release of the external "compressing" pressure of 3-4 atm, transition to an environment with an outboard pressure of 1 atm, and at an altitude 30 km is already 0,1 atm.
            DO NOT TURN BANKS then?
            Need boost:
            - in order to submit the TC to the TNA turbine (quickly, immediately and reliably ... well, do not wait until it reaches the point under the action of F?) and to the COP
            - to exclude the creation of a vacuum in the tank (it will collapse, it will prevent the supply of TC to the thermopile and to the compressor)
            - when displacing fuel supply
            Quote: Operator
            aerodynamic drag during the ascent of a rocket in an aqueous medium and flight in an air environment.


            NPP and (environmental resistance) acts on the head fairing as is known)

            About boosting a bit of educational program
            1. Operator
              Operator 23 May 2016 13: 40
              0
              But what about the "Voevoda" - also standing in the mine ("in unprotected ground") without pressurization of fuel tanks filled, among other things, with nitrogen tetroxide boiling at 21 degrees Celsius?
            2. opus
              opus 23 May 2016 15: 43
              +2
              Quote: Operator
              But what about the "Voevoda" - also standing in the mine ("in unprotected ground") without pressurization of fuel tanks filled, among other things, with nitrogen tetroxide boiling at 21 degrees Celsius?

              1.Tam TPK Heated

              This glass is blown up by a nuclear warhead at an altitude of up to *** (I do not remember the hop), with a capacity of up to 450 kT is not terrible, for 1,5 minutes the cover nafig-start, the passage of the zone of the remnants of the apocalypse results until "hello America

              "in which the temperature and humidity conditions are maintained"
              2.Underground, always constant temperature +5 grC
  • Gogia
    Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 18
    -1
    They are in the TPK constantly ready to start in the boat.
  • Rus2012
    Rus2012 22 May 2016 10: 29
    +2
    Quote: Pilat2009
    I don’t understand, the author requires from Mace comparable characteristics with Trident-2

    ... the author has the right to express an opinion. And just ...
    Considering where it is given - HBO for NG - everything becomes clear.

    But this is an awesome pearl, worthy only for ENTERTAINMENT of housewives, couch esperdas and homegrown self-taught women, like be racketeers -
    It can be stated that today in Russia there are different opinions, different approaches, different possibilities, but, unfortunately, there is no competent, fair and unbiased arbiter on strategic rocket production.


    As if we don’t have special research institutes, defense industry departments (military-industrial commission), where all the nuances of arms production are not considered, calculated, disputed and not opposed behind the closed doors, that this rubbish of the author must be thrown onto the heads of the average man.

    And finally, the last argument against the author - he operates with already outdated ideas and theories of rocketry and the use of RWO of the late 80-90s. Not a word about "flat trajectories", not a word about maneuvering BB, not a word about a "bunch of grapes" and so on. and so on.
    The material is not worthy for the author, who claims to be a highly reasoned, independent point of view.

    About the Author:
    Vladimir Alexandrovich Gundarov is a military journalist, captain of the 1 reserve rank.
    Born in 1956 in the city of Arkhangelsk. In 1979, he graduated from the Journalism Department of the Lviv Higher Military-Political School (LVVPU), served as an officer in the Northern Fleet. In 1989, he graduated from the V.I. Lenin. Since 1998, he served in Moscow.
    Editor-member of the editorial board of the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper, special correspondent for the main editorial office of foreign editions of RIA Novosti, editor-in-chief of the journal Maritime Politics of Russia, head of the print media department of the Ministry of Press and Information of the Moscow Region, military observer for Independent Military Review , editor of the political department of the newspaper "Russian courier", director of the department of public relations of the Union of charitable organizations of Russia.
    Member of the Union of Journalists of Russia. Author of the films "Under the St. Andrew's Flag", "Underwater Watch", "Best of the Best" (directed by Valery Balayan).
    1. Gogia
      Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 24
      +3
      The author is absolutely right, as he expresses the opinion of techies from the fleet and scientists. And the issues are known as resolved especially in the 90s and early 2000s. How many of these admiral lobbyists snatched their piece? Author plus!
  • demchuk.ig
    demchuk.ig 22 May 2016 14: 13
    +2
    Quote: Pilat2009
    I don’t understand, the author demands from Bulava comparable characteristics with Trident-2 with a mass of 20 tons less and smaller?

    I believe that the author is right, in solid-propellant rockets we have a serious lag, but in liquid rockets we are ahead of the rest of the planet! "Blue" and "Liner", I think, a masterpiece in rocketry! And we do not need to move away from this and ruin developments to please lobbyists!
  • Sergey S.
    Sergey S. 22 May 2016 18: 12
    +3
    Quote: Pilat2009
    I don’t understand, the author demands from Bulava comparable characteristics with Trident-2 with a mass of 20 tons less and smaller?
    All problems with the Mace can be solved if the production culture is appropriate and if highly skilled workers will make missiles and not work at private enterprises.

    The author does not require anything from the club.

    The author says that liquid rockets throw more and more, and also serve for a long time and without fail.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 23 May 2016 08: 31
    +1
    Quote: Pilat2009
    I don’t understand, the author demands from Bulava comparable characteristics with Trident-2 with a mass of 20 tons less and smaller?

    I agree with you: there is no point in comparing it with T2 - a pug and an elephant. It must be compared with T1 1979. Here she surpassed her in a number of parameters later 37let! It is not in vain that R&D on a new missile is being carried out - the Mace - failure.
  • user
    user 23 May 2016 18: 38
    0
    if the production culture is appropriate and if highly skilled workers will make rockets


    I completely agree with you, and the conclusion made by the author

    One of the conclusions of the developers of the first domestic intercontinental ballistic missiles comes down to the fact that a solid propellant rocket engine is a luxury that is available only to rich countries that have highly developed science and economics.


    I consider it controversial, just at that time there was an acute shortage of these most highly skilled workers and the production culture at that time in the country and there was simply not enough for all the projects of the Soviet Union, and the production culture is still one of our biggest problems.
  • yehat
    yehat 24 May 2016 09: 43
    -1
    I fully support. turn away from the advantages of solid rockets - nonsense
    you just need to redirect efforts from the construction of megalods to efforts to organize NORMAL missile production.
  • oops
    oops 22 May 2016 08: 20
    +1
    You have problems with rocket fuel knowledge ...
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 22 May 2016 08: 39
      +1
      I advise you to inquire about the reason for the modernization of the Minitmen, as well as a wangy increase in the number of launches of the Start launch vehicle, which is essentially a redesigned version of Topol. And the more Yars will be, the more launches will be. wassat
  • 17085
    17085 22 May 2016 08: 34
    +9
    Quote: kugelblitz
    I agree that liquid rockets are still more efficient than solid rockets and are not subject to a gradual decrease in traction during fuel production. As a matter of fact, because of the amplification, they have become even more durable. At least liquid fuels are not subject to aging. But it is also more expensive by itself, and requires a higher production culture, of which one engine costs TNA.
    The mace is also a good rocket for its class, in vain they will throw kakahami at it, in another country they would be madly proud of it. And she has a chip with a low ballistic trajectory, as well as hypersonic blocks in theory they will stand on it.


    An interesting comment, both yours and ours, although there is not a word of truth ... Liquid missiles are more effective than solid fuel ones? Is an airplane better than a helicopter to pin down a piece of paper? What parameters do you take to assess the effectiveness? However, there is nothing in the article about this either ... Except for the mythical "survivability of the rocket", quotations from artistic literature and a hodgepodge of only the author of clear conclusions - savagery! Liquid fuels are not subject to aging - complete nonsense! Article d ... and your comment ... vague.
    PySy
    RD-180 is not for the ICBM. In general, why the hell is this drawn here?
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 22 May 2016 08: 44
      +2
      Quote: 17085
      An interesting comment, both yours and ours, although not a word of truth

      Those. does the table of dimensions, weight and cargo to you say nothing? You Liner and Trident-2 compare at least. wassat
    2. Gogia
      Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 29
      -1
      Correctly Brilliant! For a long time it was necessary to write it!
  • ism_ek
    ism_ek 22 May 2016 09: 22
    -9
    Quote: kugelblitz
    At least liquid fuels are not subject to aging.

    Immediately visible home theorist. Liquid fuel is aging. After each trip, the rockets are taken out, the fuel is drained, a new one is poured, the procedure is very expensive, dangerous and time-consuming. All work is carried out in suits of chemical protection. Fuel utilization is also a big problem.
    Actually this is the main plus of Solid fuel. The rocket is loaded into the mine and can not be removed until the end of its service life.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 22 May 2016 09: 49
      +2
      Quote: ism_ek
      Immediately visible home theorist.

      Bggg, and you can immediately see a specialist! wassat Ok, let’s just remember, for starters, about amplification.

      Due to the amplification, a rocket with a liquid propellant rocket engine can be on alert on duty on duty up to 20 years or more.

      http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/[email protected]
      fDictionary


      Fuel components are reused. Cut fuel tanks are sent for re-melting, i.e. for reuse. Currently, these technologies have utilized about 1200 expired marine missiles.
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 25 May 2016 11: 19
        0
        Quote: kugelblitz
        http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/[email protected]
        fDictionary
        This article is about the UR-100 ground-based missile. The rocket is ampulized, but the fuel in it changes every 3 years, thanks to this, the rocket is still on combat duty, although it was released back in the Ukrainian SSR. I know this because I studied to be an officer of the Strategic Missile Forces. I can’t say for sure about sea missiles, but their service life is much shorter, otherwise we would not have to resume their production. New nuclear-powered ships "Kalmar" and "Dolphin" are not being built, and missiles are being produced in significant quantities. What for?
    2. rudolff
      rudolff 22 May 2016 09: 53
      +15
      Why write such nonsense? At R-29 RMU2 / RMU2.1. the tanks are ampouled, only the factory refueling, the shelf life and operation in the refilled state is not less than that of solid fuel, 10-15 years are guaranteed. After the expiration of the time, the car goes to the factory, the fuel is drained, the tanks are flawed, refilled with new ones, amputated, and here you have another 10-15 years in service. For solid fuel, such an update is not possible.
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 22 May 2016 10: 02
        +4
        Quote: rudolff
        After the expiration of the time, the car goes to the factory, the fuel is drained, the tanks are flawed, refilled with new ones, amputated, and here you have another 10-15 years in service.

        Now - once and for the whole term. Hi!!! smile
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 22 May 2016 10: 15
          +4
          Hi Andrew! I'm glad to see you! Yes, refueling for a guaranteed lifetime is one. I am on the extension of time. In Makeevka cars, it doubles without problems, solid fuel, in the case of degradation of fuel cells, only in the scrap.
          1. Andrey NM
            Andrey NM 22 May 2016 10: 36
            +1
            Rudolph, how the decision was made to renew and by whom, I know. They are now retiring and breathing fresh air in the country. In the evening you need to call, maybe you need to bring something. We will not discuss here.
          2. Gogia
            Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 27
            +1
            Exactly!!! About the degradation of solid fuel, no one from the patriots seems to have heard, nor about the cost of Makeevka cars.
    3. FREGATENKAPITAN
      FREGATENKAPITAN 22 May 2016 17: 05
      +1
      I didn’t understand the minusters ..... That's right ..... So we went on Bukahi (667B) of their hero city Gremikha to Okolnaya to constantly change rockets ..... because they were liquid-fuel ... And absolutely it’s true that with all the advantages, this is the main trouble with such missiles.
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 22 May 2016 18: 48
        +1
        Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
        So we went on Bukahi (667B) of their hero city Gremikha to Okolnaya to constantly change rockets ...

        Did you come to "jam" in Olenya? It's just that there is such a regulation for products, some on board, some at the base, and there they are, etc. do. On "solid" a similar story.
      2. Dzafdet
        Dzafdet 5 May 2017 14: 09
        0
        At 667B stood the R-27, but we are talking about the R-29RMU .. bully
  • sergeybulkin
    sergeybulkin 22 May 2016 09: 35
    +3
    At least liquid fuels are not subject to aging.

    The problem is that liquid fuel not only ages and decomposes, but its components are terribly poisonous, any leakage of oxidizing agent or fuel is fatal. In addition, the oxidizing agent is aggressive and corrodes everything, hence the limited lifetime. Although solid fuel is also not an option, solid fuel is more expensive and not predictable in flight. It would be necessary to agree with amers and others on the reduction of nuclear bombs and the cessation of the arms race.
    1. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 22 May 2016 09: 46
      +5
      Gentlemen, you have huge problems in your knowledge of liquid fuels. Products for a long time (since the end of the 60s) are refilled once and for the entire service life, and today it is much longer than the 20-year period.
      But solid fuel over the years passes into the category of blasting explosives. And in the third stage, liquid fuel is still used, which "scatters" the "carrots", but how else?
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 22 May 2016 10: 14
        +5
        Quote: Andrey NM
        Gentlemen, you have huge problems in your knowledge of liquid fuels. Products for a long time (since the end of the 60s) are refilled once and for the entire service life, and today it is much longer than the 20-year period.
        Refueling a rocket. 1998 year
        © Photo Chronicle TASS

        More on TASS:
        http://tass.ru/politika/838519
        1. AK64
          AK64 22 May 2016 10: 24
          +2
          Refueling a rocket. 1998 year
          © Photo Chronicle TASS


          Nevertheless, Angdey NM is absolutely right: rockets with LRE are fueled once for the entire service life.

          He is also right in the fact that solid fuel needs very gentle storage, and still, over time, "goes into the category of explosives" (microcracks inevitably appear - that's because of them.)
        2. Andrey NM
          Andrey NM 22 May 2016 11: 01
          +8
          For the photo is a plus, but I don’t remember that on our rocket deck pines grew smile ... This product is land and mine, completely different things. And in land matters, excuse me, I am "wooden". Well, if you think logically, how much do heavy ICBMs weigh there? Under 200 tons? And how to drag it to the mine and then load it? I think it's easier to bring an empty one, and then refuel and screw on the "head". She does not need to ride on the hump of the launcher or hang around in the boat in readiness to start.
          1. Gogia
            Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 34
            0
            Empty and under pressure, either nitrogen or an inert gas is injected. But their tanks are thin-walled, the rocket will develop under weight.
          2. ism_ek
            ism_ek 23 May 2016 11: 40
            0
            Quote: Andrey NM
            Well, if you think logically, how much do heavy ICBMs weigh there? Under 200 tons?
            200 "Satan" weighs two hundred tons. UR-100 weighs one hundred tons. Here is another photo of refueling this rocket. http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php/topic,4605.0.html
        3. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 22 May 2016 11: 03
          +1
          Quote: ism_ek
          Refueling a rocket. 1998 year

          There may be an old-style rocket, or training in general.
        4. Gogia
          Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 32
          +1
          A boat surfaced in the forest? wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat
        5. skeptik
          skeptik 22 May 2016 21: 20
          -1
          ism_ek
          This is nonsense, not a gas station. Fuel (heptyl) and oxidizing agent (nitric acid) are underground. From there, rocket refueling takes place, and no one climbs outside. Outside, cars with a neutralizing solution drive up to the mine after a rocket explosion. ZABVO, autumn 1975, the third mine.
      2. skeptik
        skeptik 22 May 2016 21: 12
        0
        Quote: Andrew NM
        Gentlemen, you have huge problems in your knowledge of liquid fuels. Products for a long time (since the end of the 60s) are refilled once and for the entire service life, and today it is much longer than the 20-year period.
        Even in 1975, the missiles were not fueled. Then they were removed from combat duty. The first rocket refueling time was 12 minutes. It was only the OSs that stood refueled.
        1. Andrey NM
          Andrey NM 23 May 2016 05: 20
          +2
          Dear Skeptic, what kind of missiles are you talking about? Naval ICBMs, starting with the D-5 complex, were ampulized, i.e. filled for the entire service life. I won't say about the earlier ones, I haven't seen them "alive".
    2. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 22 May 2016 09: 52
      +2
      I will quote fundamental shortcomings to you, anyway, I would not begin to crucify here before everyone! wassat

      Loss of serviceability of the TPT charge during the required warranty period of storage (GC) and operation (serviceability period) can occur for various reasons, the main of which are:

      1. Chemical transformations in the TPT system (composition), for example, associated with the thermal decomposition of nitroesters in the composition of ballistic fuels or a binder in the composition of mixed solid fuels, which leads to a decrease in the rate of combustion of the TPT (Fig 1), as well as the output characteristics of the solid propellant rocket engine (thrust level, thrust momentum).

      2. In the presence of armor plating (BP) in the charge structure - diffusion processes in the system "TRT - armor plating" (Pat RU 2154616, 2241845). The latter lead to a loss of energy, for example, ballistic TPT due to the diffusion of nitroglycerin (NG) in the armor coating, and to an increase in the flammability of BP saturated with NG, which, in turn, leads either to an off-balance burnout of BP (Figure 2), or to increased smoke formation of the charge in the conditions of active combustion of the PSU, which significantly complicates the guidance of the rocket at the target.

      3. The decrease in the level of physical and mechanical characteristics of TRT, due to the above chemical and diffusion processes, up to the mechanical destruction of the charge (cracking).
    3. Gogia
      Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 31
      0
      Only heptyl is poisonous! Now they use kerosene, and hydrogen is also possible.
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 22 May 2016 18: 36
        +2
        Yes, an oxidizing agent is not a gift either. Once in water, nitric acid is formed. On the skin - the same nonsense (we are 70% out of water). Vapors are very toxic.

        Quote: Gogia
        Only heptyl is poisonous! Now they use kerosene, and hydrogen is also possible.

        Not very clear. Kerosene, heptyl, hydrogen - it's all fuel. And what to oxidize? For hydrogen, the ideal oxidizing agent is oxygen, but these are already cryogenic components.
      2. opus
        opus 22 May 2016 22: 05
        +2
        Quote: Gogia
        Only heptyl is poisonous! WITH

        and AT?

        nitrogen tetraoxide (AT), pure or mixed with nitric acid?
        What is an environmentally friendly product? fool
  • AK64
    AK64 22 May 2016 10: 34
    +1
    But it is also more expensive by itself, and requires a higher production culture, of which one engine costs TNA.


    IMHO, on the contrary: solids come out more expensively. There, this disc of this size can be made and specifically shaped so the problem.
    Then drying and other things - and the size is not for children.

    IMHO, really much more expensive solid, and the price increases exponentially with size.

    Usually, arguments such as "willingness but" are given in favor. But this, as far as I know, is not relevant for a long time.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 22 May 2016 10: 43
      +1
      Quote: AK64
      IMHO, on the contrary: solids come out more expensively.

      I agree, the powder charge itself to form that hemorrhoid, as well as to form a shell, is also a non-travial task.
      It is in this case that the LRE is an expensive thing, as I understand it, there is a closed cycle, but I can’t find any sense from it. Maybe I was looking badly? And judging by the characteristics, this is something like the RD-180 level in the world of ballistic missiles.
    2. forumow
      forumow 22 May 2016 10: 51
      +2
      Yusovtsy produced side boosters with turbojet engines with a mass of 580 tons for the "shuttles" (the "Proton" launch vehicle 700 tons) and will produce even larger ones for the SLS. Compared to them, any existing ICBMs and SLBMs are childish!
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 22 May 2016 11: 00
        +6
        Quote: forumow
        Yusovtsy produced side boosters with turbojet engines weighing 580 tons for the "shuttles"

        Let them let out, not enough of them, Challenger, who died because of a breakdown of the accelerator o-ring, which led to burnout, there is an opinion that Colombia died because of that accelerator, and not from a piece of thermal insulation of an oxygen tank falling onto it. Anyway, this is a completely different class of missiles.
        1. forumow
          forumow 22 May 2016 11: 12
          -5
          Yes Yes! I apologize. Fools U.Sovtsy! We are all smarter!
          1. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 22 May 2016 11: 17
            +5
            Quote: forumow
            Yes Yes! I apologize. Fools U.Sovtsy! We are all smarter!

            Manned astronautics must still be based on liquid rockets. At least let the satellites launch satellites with saltpeter, at the same time they will get insurance! wassat
            1. Gogia
              Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 38
              +2
              About the dung with saltpeter class said! I offer on a hare granular guano - does not require drying! am am am am am
          2. opus
            opus 23 May 2016 00: 23
            +1
            Quote: forumow
            Yes Yes! I apologize. Fools U.Sovtsy! We are all smarter!

            +
            Has musk in his pocket not yelling about it all over the street? Or will you not praise yourself - will no one be praised?
            The same is with the mind.
            Threat.
            All the while, more and more, TopVar begins to remind me of no censor with kaklami (Ukrainians)!
            but only raguli were replaced by "ours".
            and so it’s the same.
            They dug up the Black Sea for a hundred hundred years BC with their hands, and
            We: the smartest, and all suckers, the USSR tore the USA tore the Americans to the "British flag"

            .
            Where is the USSR?
            And the USA blooms and smells, smells and blooms.
            And we
          3. Dzafdet
            Dzafdet 5 May 2017 14: 13
            0
            Something throws you from side to side ... bully What they can do is ... tongue
        2. Nekarmadlen
          Nekarmadlen 22 May 2016 11: 39
          0
          Take Columbia here? The ship died on the descent due to damage to the thermal insulation, like .... Or did the solid-fuel accelerator somehow damage the ship during its launch into orbit? It seems that before that 20 years flew, and everything was fine ...
          1. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 22 May 2016 11: 51
            +2
            Quote: Nekarmadlen
            The ship died on the descent due to damage to the thermal insulation, like .... Or did the solid-fuel accelerator somehow damage the ship during its launch into orbit?

            It is suspicion that the accelerator damaged the thermal insulation. Specifically the left plane.
      2. AK64
        AK64 22 May 2016 11: 04
        0
        Yusovtsy produced side boosters with turbojet engines with a mass of 580 tons for the "shuttles" (the "Proton" launch vehicle 700 tons) and will produce even larger ones for the SLS. Compared to them, any existing ICBMs and SLBMs are childish!

        They had one catastrophe.

        And besides, there they have not a monoblock, but a composite, of 4 pieces. That is, 4 pieces are cast and assembled into a pyramid.
        1. forumow
          forumow 22 May 2016 11: 13
          0
          Quote: AK64
          not a monoblock, but a composite of 4 pieces.

          And-and-and ?!
          1. AK64
            AK64 22 May 2016 11: 22
            +2
            Cast 4x150 and 1x580 --- these are the two most differences.

            And my opinion: the Americans didn’t do it from a great mind. I don’t understand why they did that.
            Usually, after all, what is called primarily the advantage of a turbojet engine is immediate readiness for launch. But for the cosmic inhabitant, launched according to planIt’s completely unimportant.
            And the rest of the TTRF has disadvantages: the momentum is always less, the price is usually higher, the control of the modes is at least problematic, dangerous modes are possible.
      3. Gogia
        Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 37
        +2
        They have fluid problems and their own lobby at NASA
    3. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 22 May 2016 10: 53
      +1
      And there are pictures, but it’s understandable to guess from them.
      RD-0243, TNA and the engine itself with steering assemblies.



    4. Gogia
      Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 36
      +1
      Exactly! In vain, our chasing Amers. All liquid rockets had a ratio of casting weight to starting weight better ...
  • Proxima
    Proxima 22 May 2016 12: 18
    +8
    Quote: kugelblitz
    I agree that liquid rockets are still more efficient than solid rockets

    You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG! You can't compare warm with soft. LPRE and solid propellant engines have a whole bunch of "pluses" and, accordingly, a sea of ​​"minuses". You can't tell everything in one post. Take, for example, the rocket mass / payload indicator. A solid-propellant rocket weighing up to 50 tons surpasses a rocket on a liquid-propellant engine in this indicator. Above 50 tons, the baton of efficiency goes to liquid-propellant rockets. It is not surprising that our 50-ton "Poplars" are solid-fuel, and the hundred-ton "Stilettos" and two-hundred-ton "Voevods" are liquid. The question is why? It's simple. The fact is that in a solid propellant rocket, the fuel container is also a combustion chamber. That is, it must withstand high pressure, which entails an increase in the thickness of the walls in the container and, accordingly, the "useless" mass of the rocket. BUT, the turbo pump unit, which is absent in solid-propellant rockets, completely eliminates this disadvantage. True, as I wrote above, this no longer helps if the mass of the rocket is more than 50 tons. And believe me, there is a whole carriage and a small cart of such nuances.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 22 May 2016 12: 30
      +2
      Quote: Proxima
      You are TOTALLY WRONG!

      In what? What Liner surpasses Trident-2 in parameters? So it is already visible with the naked eye. First of all, it depends on the specific impulse of the combustion chamber; I spoke above about the drop in the solid propellant thrust.
      Poplars, or rather Pioneers and others with it smaller complexes, began to make due to operating conditions, namely, the soil mobile complex is too stressed for liquid rockets.
      The RT-2 was made with an eye on the Americans, who switched to the solid propellant rocket due to the problems of the current tanks of the Titans-2. Ours have solved this problem and therefore we have heavy mine-based rockets liquid. With submarines, they decided to use the same developments for the amplification of tanks. But work on the development of rockets with solid propellant rocket engines went in parallel.
    2. Dzafdet
      Dzafdet 5 May 2017 14: 18
      0
      A little to count? Take Yars in 47 tons and Sineva in 40 tons, the first casts 1.2 tons of fuel tanks, the second - 2 tons! laughing tongue
  • Verdun
    Verdun 22 May 2016 12: 56
    +2
    Quote: kugelblitz
    . At least liquid fuels are not subject to aging. But also more expensive by itself
    Heptyl is a by-product of chemical production and costs almost nothing.
    The mace is also a good rocket for its class, in vain they will throw kakahami at it, in another country they would be madly proud of it.
    You immediately specify in which one. North Korea would probably be proud.
    The question, of course, is rhetorical also because the government has invested billions of rubles in the development of the Mace and the creation of its carrier - strategic submarines of project 955 Borey.
    This I quote from the author. Here the pubis built under the Mace is the main problem. How could a series have been laid when rocket tests were not yet completed? At the same time, submarines, the compartments of which are designed for large-size missiles, can be redone according to the Bulava. But on the contrary - no way. And in the event that the Mace still remains problematic, neither the Liner, nor Sineva, nor the new missile of large dimensions can be pushed into these boats. As a result - a lot of money spent and a lot of very expensive scrap metal on hand. What, again on the needles? At the same time, the author of the article deals with specific figures and facts, and opponents refer to certain, rather speculative, statements.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 22 May 2016 15: 46
      +2
      Quote: Verdun
      And in the event that the mace still remains problematic

      Her statistics are not bad, in fact, out of 24 launches, 17 were successful, the main problems were at the initial stage and the last accident was the fault of the control system, and not the engine itself.
    2. Gogia
      Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 42
      +1
      But typhoons could be remade into more compact missiles and no longer, for example 20, but under 36! That would be a surprise !!!
  • iouris
    iouris 22 May 2016 13: 12
    +2
    Let's put this issue to a nationwide referendum!
  • Simple
    Simple 22 May 2016 13: 53
    +3
    "Reducing thrust while generating fuel"?
    I will create any change in the surface area of ​​the solid propellant rocket engine:
    And I will do a constant thrust with an increase and a decrease and steps and a sine wave, etc.
    Simple geometry.
    And if I use pressure drainage in the combustion zone of the solid propellant rocket engine: in general I can be perverted ...
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 22 May 2016 16: 09
      -1
      Quote: Just
      I can pervert at all.

      If you can, what do you say to that?
      Losses of specific impulse characterize the difference between the real value of specific impulse from its theoretical or ideal value. The actual specific impulse of a solid propellant rocket motor can be determined by the results of engine tests. The theoretical, or thermodynamic, specific impulse is determined by calculation. At the same time, a number of simplifying assumptions are made, idealizing the conditions for the combustion of solid fuel in the combustion chamber of the engine and the expiration of combustion products from the nozzle.
      In this case, often no geometry can correct the deposition of particles on the nozzle walls, scattering losses, two-phase losses caused by high-speed and temperature delay of the condensate during expansion of the combustion products in the nozzle.

      In general, I had in mind a drop in specific impulse due to a decrease in pressure to the combustion chamber wassat

      This is not fought with geometry, but the use of fuels with different combustion rates and the choice of the appropriate configuration of the fuel charge.
      1. Operator
        Operator 22 May 2016 16: 24
        +1
        A rocket with a liquid propellant rocket engine will always have an advantage over a rocket with solid propellant rocket engines due to the best weight return of the structure: for the first pressure of several hundred atmospheres, only the engine is loaded, for the second the whole body is the combustion chamber.
        1. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 22 May 2016 16: 54
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          the whole body is a combustion chamber.

          I’m trying to explain this to my opponent, on average, solid propellant rocket engines have a specific impulse inferior to 10% LRE. Although Shuttle boosters are cited as an example, they say the fuel packs better, the traction is atrocious. But this is a completely different type, other tasks, and there are fundamental shortcomings for that class of equipment, such as the impossibility of regulating traction.
          On the whole, I think that they did the right thing, that a solid-fuel rocket was delivered to the submarines, still a more tenacious structure, the parameters are essentially the same as those of Trident-2, accidents are usually associated with slovenliness, after the elimination of which the rocket began to fly normally.
          And let liquid ones stand in the mines, the launched weight is more important there, the service life and most importantly then can be disposed of as launch vehicles.
          1. opus
            opus 22 May 2016 22: 36
            +1
            Quote: kugelblitz
            I’m trying to explain this to my opponent, on average, solid propellant rocket engines are inferior in specific impulse by 10% LRE. X

            at least 25%, and as a rule up to 50% (ours is ours).
            Dvoeshnik you.
            Quote: kugelblitz
            In general, I had in mind a drop in specific impulse due to a decrease in pressure to the combustion chamber

            got out.
            What do I have in mind?
            Quote: kugelblitz
            not subject to gradual reduced traction during fuel production.

            where about woo
            written in RUSSIAN: traction drop
            I'll stick an aspen stake, about the "traction"


            Quote: kugelblitz
            carry rockets

            Quote: kugelblitz
            fuel packs better, brutal thrust

            who blinked silly about "packed"?
            -DENSITY TK, so wa and pack.
            Imagine an idiot that compresses a TT charge or compresses a liquid oxidizer / fuel
            fool
            -if you show me a SINGLE LRE (not a package) with 12,45 MN thrust (which is 1,8 times more than the F-1 engine thrust used in the Saturn-5 rocket for flying to the Moon) =1200 tf and in 20 seconds after the start, the thrust grows to 13,8 MN (1400 tf).
            "I'll kiss you .., then .. if you want!"

            But 1400TC is a junk SRB !!!!!
            Quote: kugelblitz
            the main thing then can be disposed of as launch vehicles.

            la-la-trapola.
            1. RN "Minotaur"

            begging what? Iptyt is the same fear of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU under the name MX (ICBM RTTT)
            1. opus
              opus 22 May 2016 22: 47
              +1
              2. The Russian Start-1 launch vehicle, launched today from the Russian Far East Svobodny cosmodrome in the Amur Region, is launching into space the Israeli commercial Earth remote sensing satellite Eros-B1.



              The carrier is launched from a mobile launcher of the Topol missile system by the so-called mortar launch
              "Start-1"? Mlyayaya. So this is the Topol solid-propellant missile ICBM!
              Doesn’t it?
              3.Lockheed Martin Corporation
              LV Athena-2 (Athena II, LLV-2 / LMLV-2)
              in the second half of the 1980's, Lockheed Martin was the main developer a number of underwater ballistic missiles (UGM-27 Polaris, UGM-73 Poseidon and Trident), began to study the conversion project their missiles to realize the possibility of launching spacecraft

              4.
              Tell me about LGM-30 Minuteman ... or you can find it yourself
              wink
              5. Gav-woof ...
              I can continue about
              Quote: kugelblitz
              and most importantly, it can then be disposed of as launch vehicles.

              EXACTLY FOR ICBMs with solid propellant rocket engines
              1. kugelblitz
                kugelblitz 23 May 2016 19: 07
                +1
                Quote: opus
                at least 25%, and usually up to 50%

                Okay, so be it! wassat
                Quote: opus
                I'll stick an aspen stake, about the "traction"

                Quiet uncle !!! Palekhce !!! Pictures from the textbook are good, but they do not fundamentally solve the problem!
                Quote: opus
                who blinked silly about "packed"?

                Uncle! Expressed wrong! wassat
                Quote: opus
                if you show me the ONE LRE

                Uncle! I suggest you yourself fly on this powder saber into space! And I wouldn’t fly, it’s better on the rotten rocket engine! wassat
                Quote: opus
                la-la-trapola.

                Uncle! I spoke about our missiles and they themselves gave an example of a light launch vehicle "Start"! In this context, I don't care about the Minotaurs. winked
                Quote: opus
                "Start-1"? Mlyayaya. So this is the Topol solid-propellant missile ICBM!

                Uncle! Stop, it was about Poplar that he hinted, because in connection with the commissioning of "Yars", which are going to replace them, the first ones will either burn out idly at the stand, or go like a launch vehicle. I wrote it straight!
                And the more Yars will be, the more launches will be

                Uncle, I understand that you have mourning, Bottle 9 caught the feil and all the perversions went to dust, what are you so angry! wassat
        2. opus
          opus 22 May 2016 22: 07
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          due to the best weight return of the structure: at the first pressure of several hundred atmospheres, only the engine is loaded

          return on weight would be better for a modern rocket with solid propellant rocket ... up to?
          to a certain (size
          masses)
          Quote: Operator
          the second has the whole body - it's a combustion chamber.

          which is a charge of solid fuel
      2. Proxima
        Proxima 22 May 2016 17: 53
        +1
        Quote: kugelblitz

        This is not fought with geometry, but the use of fuels with different combustion rates and the choice of the appropriate configuration of the fuel charge.

        You don’t think that I find fault, but again you are not quite right. None of the changes in the burning area, and even more so the laying of checkers with different burning speeds in the fuel container, does not practically solve the problem. Well, the rocket will not shift the fuel checkers during the flight, but let’s say it urgently needs to increase or decrease the engine thrust. And about the change in the burning area - it's all beautiful in theory. In practice, it’s not technologically advanced, unrealistically difficult and therefore unreliable and expensive. I suggest that you independently understand the question of why a solid-fuel engine CANNOT COMPETE with a liquid propellant rocket engine in terms of thrust changes.
        1. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 22 May 2016 18: 10
          +2
          Quote: Proxima
          You do not think that I find fault

          I don’t think you are finding fault. Just as I said above, it’s more convenient to operate structurally simple solid propellant rocket engines, although they have their own chips, as we say more stringent temperature and humidity storage.
          In other comments, he already noted that the regulation of thrust in a solid propellant rocket engine is fundamentally impossible, as well as multiple start-ups, only the thrust vector must be changed and the nozzles open and close until the checker burns out or it is forced to be extinguished.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 22 May 2016 19: 52
            0
            But the solid propellant rocket motor is cheaper to manufacture, and the efficiency of both engines depends on the fuel.
            1. Dzafdet
              Dzafdet 5 May 2017 14: 26
              0
              The cost of solid propellant rocket engines is 3.5 -5 times higher than liquid propellant rocket engines .... wassat
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. mart-kot
          mart-kot 27 May 2016 09: 34
          0
          Brother, let it be known that the thrust in the TTR is not regulated, the direction of the pulse is regulated to output to the calculated parameters of the trajectory
    2. opus
      opus 22 May 2016 22: 21
      +1
      Quote: Just
      And if I use pressure drainage in the combustion zone of the solid propellant rocket engine: in general I can be perverted ...

      I support comrade Simple
      I will add
      1.
      2. I can adjust the thrust of the solid propellant rocket engine in the same way:
      -Ty layers
      - introduction of catalysts / inhibitors into TT charge
      - injection of inhibitors / catalysts into the combustion zone, just water finally
      -without nozzle solid propellant rocket motor (the most squeak and it seems we are leading here), by changing the Scr of the nozzle section from T
      - SSOV ... tf

      Quote: kugelblitz
      x and are not subject to a gradual decrease in thrust during fuel production.

      Genosse "ball lightning" (or shining ball / ball / testicle)
      What convoy have you fallen from? Are you in school in the 3 class? Geometry did not study isho?
      thrust of solid propellant solid propellant rocket is directly proportional to the area (change) of solid propellant combustion and pressure in solid propellant solid propellant rocket ceteris paribus, other things being equal (component, T, etc.)

      -Change traction (the easiest way) -This is the geometry at the class level №5
      - for all "normal" solid propellants it is just a problem to extinguish the increase in thrust, tg. the simplest, most technologically advanced and durable solid propellant rocket engine: it is a hollow cylinder with combustion along the inner cavity

      Quote: kugelblitz
      If you can, what do you say to that?

      You first turn on the brain, then ask ....
      something faded a shiny ball similar.
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 23 May 2016 05: 42
        +4
        2. I can adjust the thrust of the solid propellant rocket engine in the same way:
        -Ty layers
        - introduction of catalysts / inhibitors into TT charge
        - injection of inhibitors / catalysts into the combustion zone, just water finally

        Those. to control the thrust and its vector (and there were solid propellant rocket motors with ring injection of inert gas into the nozzle to control the thrust vector, honestly, I don’t remember which engine, if I’ll find it in principle) you still need to drag inhibitors or water that are injected into the combustion zone, most reducing the energy of combustion products? And where is the efficiency here?
        1. opus
          opus 24 May 2016 00: 45
          +1
          Quote: Andrey NM
          Those. to control traction and its vector

          Did I talk about the thrust vector?
          I'm talking about cravings (its value)
          Vector is a rocking recessed nozzle,

          either like that


          Quote: Andrey NM
          And where is the efficiency here?

          1. I'm talking about the adjustment.
          2. As a rule, draft: burning area.
          3. Do not want to drag
          : throttling, although it can go out altogether and this happened
          4. Any rocket on itself protects, and the liquid propellant rocket engine including
          squibs (TTZ) for the separation of steps. Pad for boosting and operation of shutoff valves.
          ICBMs with liquid propellant rocket engine regulates thrust, reducing Km (MI decreases, efficiency, too, for testing the flight program), or throttling thrust (five losses)
          So what?
          It is practically "imperceptible"
          I myself am a liquid-propellant rocket engine driver, however, I remember how I almost managed it when it leaked when refueling V-880М

          And the cost?

          Quote: Andrey NM
          And where is the efficiency here?

          the cost.
          Get full efficiency on a hybrid 2x component solid propellant rocket engine, where the fuel is TT, and the oxidizer is liquid (gas-phase)
          2 1 in
          or helium fuel.
          Research by the American Army’s Scientific Administration in Indiana: gels that have the consistency of orange marmalade do not leak gels anywhere and allow better missile control. In addition, gel engines provide a little more energy than solid fuel engines.
        2. Dzafdet
          Dzafdet 5 May 2017 14: 27
          0
          R-39 missile and Stiletto Bzhrk ...
  • RUSS
    RUSS 22 May 2016 15: 19
    +4
    The first and only salvo in full ammunition - 16 RSM-54 liquid-fuel missiles - completed 15 years ago strategic missile submarine "Novomoskovsk". The tests were carried out in order to check the "behavior" of the cruiser after he was freed from almost 90 tons of "jet" cargo replaced by sea water within 645 seconds. And the cruiser behaved five plus, and all the mass-dimensional models of warheads successfully "hit" conditional targets. This shooting became a world military-technical record Soviet submariners. American submariners on board the Ohio dared to launch only four Trident-2 missiles with a total weight of just over 236 tons. Before the start of the August events in Moscow and the subsequent collapse of the USSR, 12 days remained.

    Something that does not fit in with the author ..... or the article was written about ten years ago.
    1. Gogia
      Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 44
      +1
      He described it. at 91 early August! Operation "Behemoth" There is a video on YouTube
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFihkDXzTew

      By the way, the video has a time counter. Between the launch of each rocket for about a minute !!!!!
      1. Oleg samara
        Oleg samara 24 May 2016 15: 15
        0
        Quote: Gogia
        By the way, the video has a time counter. Between the launch of each rocket for about a minute!


        Recording from the escort ship starts at 21.10 on this counter. In a minute, 6 rockets came out. And then, somehow, the recording goes with scraps - 5 seconds per minute of recording.
    2. opus
      opus 23 May 2016 01: 37
      +1
      Quote: RUSS
      The first and only salvo in full ammunition - the 16 liquid-fuel missiles RSM-54 - was carried out 15 years ago by the strategic missile submarine cruiser Novomoskovsk.

      Solid fuel (R-30 Typhoon) there were already 20 pieces, 2 times in 1997 ...

      if you don’t lie, of course.
      EBN could pour what you want
      1. Dzafdet
        Dzafdet 5 May 2017 14: 30
        0
        There are also R-39 missiles with expired storage periods .. good
  • Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 22 May 2016 07: 11
    +7
    Who is this author? Where did such information come from? (They clearly have a neck). And if the fact that he wrote the truth is at least half, he must be attracted for disclosure. In general, it looks more like an order, and he got it wrong, 15 ago the Union was gone.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 22 May 2016 08: 21
      +10
      Quote: Dmitry Potapov
      Who is this author? Where did such information come from? (They clearly have a neck). And if the fact that he wrote the truth is at least half, he must be attracted for disclosure. In general, it looks more like an order, and he got it wrong, 15 ago the Union was gone.

      I am not the author. But data on missiles "Sineva", "Bark", "Bulava", sea. Starting with someone beloved, with someone not beloved Vicki. In Wiki, drive in the Mace, ion will give you all the necessary data. So that it is not necessary to be blunt about secret data. And if you type in Google or Yandex search, they will find you something that the author did not even know about.
      1. viktorR
        viktorR 22 May 2016 18: 06
        +1
        they will find you something about which the author did not even suspect.
        Yes, what kind of author is there, you can find there that is unknown to the designers and testers of the desired rocket. )
  • sgg
    sgg 22 May 2016 07: 20
    +2
    All is correct. But late, our country has already spent tens of billions of rubles on this project, a significant part of which fell into the pockets of the project lobbyists.
    1. AK64
      AK64 22 May 2016 10: 07
      0
      All is correct. But late, our country has already spent tens of billions of rubles on this project, a significant part of which fell into the pockets of project lobbyists


      Exactly. Everything written (or most of what was written) was clear back in the early 90's. And that the Mace is to a considerable extent banal lobbying and cutting dough - it was clear too.

      Just a design bureau named after Makeev, due to its geographical location in the Urals, in the art of lobbying could not be close to MIT (in Moscow).
    2. Gogia
      Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 47
      -1
      And I'm talking about the same thing. Look at the houses of Admirals and retired officials who made the decisions then.
  • ImPerts
    ImPerts 22 May 2016 07: 22
    +3
    Strange article. I can’t add anything else.
    Although not. Based on the tonality and orientation - Stalin wanted to attack Hitler. Hitler defended himself. That said sharply.
  • RedBaron
    RedBaron 22 May 2016 07: 31
    -1
    you forgot to scribble anonymous letters ... fool
    Quote: Dmitry Potapov
    Who is this author? Where did such information come from? (They clearly have a neck). And if the fact that he wrote the truth is at least half, he must be attracted for disclosure. In general, it looks more like an order, and he got it wrong, 15 ago the Union was gone.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 22 May 2016 07: 38
    +7
    Time will tell how the card will fall.
    But for the sake of someone’s ambitions ... depriving the country of protection is too much.
    "For modern solid-propellant sea missiles" Bulava ", the start of combat duty of which was supposed to take place in 2014-2015 (actually in 2016-2017), the projected service life is up to 2050-2060." ... this is generally a pitchfork on the water written.
    What is called solid fuel ... this is the weak link, as it will lead during storage, only the Almighty knows.
    It is one thing to work on terrestrial systems, and on marine systems for another years, so it will take 20 years to understand how it behaves.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 22 May 2016 08: 40
      +3
      Quote: Strashila
      What is called solid fuel ... this is the weak link, as it will lead during storage, only the Almighty knows.
      It is one thing to work on terrestrial systems, and on marine systems for another years, so it will take 20 years to understand how it behaves.

      We had solid-fuel rockets R-31; KB-7 P. Tyurin and R-39; KB-385 V. Makeeva. So there was operational experience. Truth V.P. Makeev considered his R-39 a failure from -for its size and weight. This is a link to the P-39 http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/r39/r39.shtml
      And this is about P-31 http://topwar.ru/25523-babushka-bulavy-r-31.html
  • Idiot
    Idiot 22 May 2016 07: 38
    +2
    The author is absolutely right. I do not understand at all why the launch vehicles were built, if the Bulava is still raw and it is not known whether it will fly at all. I mean its compliance with the declared characteristics. Solomonenko is generally a pest of some kind, a fucking monopolist. It was impossible to give the naval missile theme to the MIT, no one would make weapons for SSBNs better than the Makeyevites.
    1. 11 black
      11 black 22 May 2016 07: 48
      +6
      Quote: pft, fkb
      The author is absolutely right. I do not understand at all why the launch vehicles were built, if the Bulava is still raw and it is not known whether it will fly at all. I mean its compliance with the declared characteristics. Solomonenko is generally a pest of some kind, a fucking monopolist. It was impossible to give the naval missile theme to the MIT, no one would make weapons for SSBNs better than the Makeyevites.

      I agree that the GEC knows their business, and Sineva’s phenomenal reliability is a prime example - but first, let's see how the Mace behaves. The first P-29 was also developed in 1974, and Sineva from it turned out only in 2007 ...
      Mace is still ahead and it is too early to draw conclusions - both directions need to be developed and in the end choose the best.
      In addition, it is the Bulava that will be the weapon of the Barguzin BZHRK - so in any case it came in handy.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 22 May 2016 08: 59
        +3
        Quote: 11 black
        Mace is still ahead and it is too early to draw conclusions

        The rocket is still quite new, any product has a development stage, which means accidents and so on. Liquid ones were not easy either, or did the Americans immediately make 100% work products?

      2. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 22 May 2016 09: 48
        +2
        Quote: 11 black
        The first R-29 was also developed in 1974, and Sineva from it turned out only in 2007 ...

        These products are only externally similar from a distance. And so only letters in the designation are similar. These are different cars.
      3. Dzafdet
        Dzafdet 5 May 2017 14: 31
        0
        Before Sineva was r-29 ... laughing
    2. alicante11
      alicante11 22 May 2016 07: 54
      +5
      I do not understand at all why the launch vehicles were built, if the Bulava is still raw and it is not known whether it will fly at all.


      Nothing strange, the British also built their superdreadnoughts like "Queen Elizabeth" for non-existent cannons. And the boats turned out to be perfect. IMHO, stuffing. There is too much secrecy to make such claims. And comparing 5 launches and 22 by the percentage of failures is not true.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 22 May 2016 09: 24
        +2
        Quote: alicante11
        Nothing strange, the British also built their superdreadnoughts like "Queen Elizabeth" for non-existent cannons. And the boats turned out to be perfect. IMHO, stuffing. There is too much secrecy to make such claims. And comparing 5 launches and 22 by the percentage of failures is not true.

        The author is disingenuous, in 2015 a salvo of two Bulava missiles was successful, there were rumors that one of the warheads of the second missile hit the target inaccurately.
        The video shows a volley from "Vladimir Monomakh" in 2015.
        1. Yak28
          Yak28 22 May 2016 09: 32
          0
          Two missile salvo sounds funny lol , soon launching one rocket will be a gulp. It's like shooting a couple of bullets from a machine gun and telling you to cover it with machine gun fire
          1. 11 black
            11 black 22 May 2016 09: 37
            +6
            Quote: Yak28
            A volley of two rockets sounds funny lol, soon launching one rocket will be a volley. It's like firing a couple of bullets from a machine gun and telling you to cover it with machine gun fire

            With regard to the Mace - a volley of two missiles is the sum of 1500000 tons of TNT (10 warheads in each missile, each 150kt) or twenty cities destroyed with a million people - is that ridiculous?
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 22 May 2016 11: 28
            +2
            Quote: Yak28
            A volley of two rockets sounds ridiculous, soon launching one rocket will be a volley. It's like firing a couple of bullets from a machine gun and telling you to cover it with machine gun fire

            1 is a shot, more than one is a volley.
            1. Verdun
              Verdun 22 May 2016 13: 13
              +1
              1 is a shot, more than one is a volley.
              You tell this to the hunters, who shoot doublets. "I shot the hare in one gulp!" - sounds nice...
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 22 May 2016 14: 39
                0
                Quote: Verdun
                You tell this to the hunters, who shoot doublets. "I shot the hare in one gulp!" - sounds nice...

                VOLLEY. A simultaneous shot at the command of several guns, guns. Give a volley. Reply in one gulp. With several volleys, the Cossacks dispersed the crowd. ”
  • PKK
    PKK 22 May 2016 07: 53
    +3
    The liquid rocket itself was built mainly in the former Ukraine. After the collapse of the USSR, these missiles were in jeopardy. Therefore, it was logical to build a quick Mace. The technologies worked out at the Pioneers and Topoli. As a temporary Mace it should have played a role. After import substitutions, please release cell tanks, TNA, SOB, SNB and so on.
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 22 May 2016 08: 56
      +6
      Quote: PKK
      The liquid rocket itself was built mainly in the former Ukraine.

      Why all of a sudden? Makeevka Design Bureau in the Urals built ballistic missiles for submarines, including the r29, r29rmu2 / p54, engines, control - Korolev, Voronezh.
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 22 May 2016 09: 50
        +4
        I clarify. We started in Zlatoust, and then on KRASMASH, something else in Omsk.
      2. Gogia
        Gogia 22 May 2016 17: 51
        +1
        Miass city!
    2. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 22 May 2016 09: 04
      +3
      Quote: PKK
      The liquid rocket itself was built mainly in the former Ukraine.

      Liquid missiles for submarines were built at the Krasnoyarsk engineering plant.

      http://www.krasm.com/about/kmz.aspx?ItemId=9

    3. forumow
      forumow 22 May 2016 09: 20
      0
      On the contrary! The most large missiles with TTRDs were made in Ukraine: the RT-23 (CC-22) Molodets, as well as the first stage for the Makeevskaya R-39, which (stage) was unified with the first missile.
    4. AK64
      AK64 22 May 2016 10: 12
      +2
      The liquid rocket itself was built mainly in the former Ukraine. After the collapse of the USSR, these missiles were in jeopardy. Therefore, it was logical and built on a quick mace.


      That's not true.
      Sea-based missiles were designed and made in the Urals, in Makeev’s Design Bureau. (First led by Makeev, and then by Makeev)
      1. Strashila
        Strashila 22 May 2016 11: 10
        +3
        Makeevtsy developers ... serially produced five order-bearing Krasmash plant.
        1. AK64
          AK64 22 May 2016 11: 12
          0
          Yes, I’ve already recovered.
          Sort, sorry
      2. AK64
        AK64 22 May 2016 11: 11
        0
        Correction: only "designed", without "made".

        Andrey, if you are talking about Makeev’s Design Bureau, but not in Zlatoust (although Miass is next to Zlatoust, of course)
      3. Dzafdet
        Dzafdet 5 May 2017 14: 35
        0
        KBM- engineering design bureau, there is an experimental production of the MMZ, some were made at the Zlatoust machine-building plant, R-29 ...- Krasmash.
    5. Dzafdet
      Dzafdet 5 May 2017 14: 32
      0
      16 years is quick? laughing wassat
  • Lime Bayun
    Lime Bayun 22 May 2016 08: 02
    +4
    The best liquid rockets is a fact, from this article and more. A missile defense is easily overcome by a maneuvering warhead, the trajectory of which is impossible to calculate.
    1. sa-ag
      sa-ag 22 May 2016 09: 37
      +1
      Quote: Lime Bayun
      the trajectory of which is impossible to calculate.

      There is a certain corridor due to the energy and ballistics of the warhead, in which the warhead can change course, why is it not calculated, is it considered on the accounts?
    2. AK64
      AK64 22 May 2016 10: 14
      0
      A missile defense is easily overcome by a maneuvering warhead, the trajectory of which is impossible to calculate.

      For this, the warhead must be equipped with engines and fuel. And mean excess weight warhead. And with the same weight / size of the rocket, the warheads will be half as much.
      Or three times less.
      1. viktorR
        viktorR 22 May 2016 18: 31
        +1
        Do you take aerodynamic control into account? He doesn’t need engines, no fuel.
        1. AK64
          AK64 22 May 2016 23: 26
          0
          Do you take aerodynamic control into account? He doesn’t need engines, no fuel.

          It’s only already in the atmosphere, IMHO For the ABM maneuver it’s too late: modern missile defense will get it earlier (who needs explosions above their heads).
          1. Operator
            Operator 23 May 2016 00: 24
            +1
            In airless space, warheads are masked by dozens of false targets, no missile defense system is able to intercept them, with the exception of missiles equipped with megaton warheads that burn false targets with x-ray radiation. But such missiles are withdrawn from service at the moment.

            Therefore, BB interception is possible only after entering the atmosphere and naturally eliminating false targets due to different aerodynamic drag. The only BB protection in this section of the trajectory is the anti-aircraft maneuver using aerodynamic control surfaces (as the least energy-consuming).
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 23 May 2016 00: 37
              +2
              Quote: Operator
              no missile defense system is capable of intercepting them, with the exception of missiles equipped megaton warheadsиThat burn false targets with x-ray

              Well, I just can not deny myself the pleasure:

              About "megaton warheads":

              Quote: Lance
              ... Earlier, the Americans decided not to trifle at all and rushed over their territory in low orbit to a vigorous fool, if memory serves, megatons and a half ...

              Not only did all of the lights on the lanterns burst in a certain city, they also carried out a third (!) Of the satellite constellation in low orbits, both ours and ours, with an explosion (EMP).

              On a note of the Union in the style of "What are you, morons ?!" fool ", the Americans replied," Do not deny sad ", after which such" experiments "ceased.

              But the dead satellites still smoked space for a long time, until they left their orbits ...

              Well, and here it is:

              Quote: Operator
              burn false targets with x-ray

              This .. and what - nothing more, or what? Just like that - X-ray - and burn? belay
              How scary to live (s)

              Operatorburn echo good
              1. Operator
                Operator 23 May 2016 01: 04
                0
                Learn the materiel - the Safeguard missile defense system used long-range missile defense LIM-49A Spartan with an 5 megaton warhead and a range of 740 km.

                Such a range was chosen to minimize the exposure of missile defense against radar missile defense. The main damaging factor in airless space is electromagnetic radiation of the entire known range.

                The most numerous false targets accompanying the BB in flight in the transatmospheric section, in the form of conical thin-walled shells made of metallized plastic, are destroyed (temperature deformed) by the electromagnetic radiation of the X-ray range at a distance of 18 km from the epicenter of a nuclear explosion.

                Another thing is that even such an explosion remote at 740 km would still temporarily disable missile defense radars and in this connection only leading warheads could be intercepted. Therefore, the United States abandoned the transatmospheric missiles with nuclear warheads.

                That allows us to confidently talk about the inevitability of a retaliatory thermonuclear strike on American territory - the Russian means to overcome missile defense (false targets and maneuvering BBs) rule am
                1. Cat man null
                  Cat man null 23 May 2016 01: 26
                  0
                  Quote: Operator
                  the Safeguard missile defense system used long-range missile defense LIM-49A Spartan with a 5-megaton warhead

                  - Arctic fox to satellites .. and neither ZhPS to you, nor the Internet .. pichalka sad

                  Quote: Operator
                  Teach materiel

                  - Teach yourself .. here - according to the results of tests of that crap that Throw described:

                  Quote: http://www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/index.shtml?zhelez_33.ht
                  ml
                  ... The experiment was repeated on July 9 of that year. The Tor missile was launched with serial number 195. This time everything went well. The explosion looked amazing - the nuclear glow was visible on Wake Island at a distance of 2200 kilometers, on Kwajalein Atoll (2600 kilometers) and even in New Zealand, 7000 kilometers south of Johnston!
                  Unlike the 1958 tests, when the first nuclear explosions in space “thundered”, the Starfish test quickly received publicity and was accompanied by a noisy political campaign. The explosion was monitored by space assets of the USA and the USSR. So, for example, the Soviet satellite Cosmos-5, being 1200 kilometers below the explosion horizon, recorded an instantaneous increase in the intensity of gamma radiation by several orders of magnitude, followed by a decrease of two orders of magnitude in 100 seconds. After the explosion, an extensive and powerful radiation belt arose in the Earth’s magnetosphere.. At least three satellites entering it were damaged due to the rapid degradation of solar panels. The presence of this belt had to be taken into account when planning the flights of the Vostok-3 and Vostok-4 manned spacecraft in August 1962 and Mercury-8 in October of that year. The effects of pollution of the magnetosphere have been noticeable for several years.

                  - as for me, such a "spot" disguises the warhead better than any "decoys".

                  IMHO, yes ..
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 23 May 2016 02: 13
                    +1
                    What kind of satellites can be after exchanging massive thermonuclear strikes with air and ground explosions with a total power of tens of gigatons (in comparison with this, the explosion of hundreds of anti-missiles is baby talk) - the entire ionosphere of the Earth will turn into a single radiation belt laughing

                    The missile defense radars for the remaining flight time of the BB disable not a radiation "spot", but an electromagnetic pulse of a nuclear explosion. The ionized radiation cloud is the cherry on top in case the enemy will deliver an additional nuclear missile strike after reloading the air defense radars.

                    But the basis for the use of strategic nuclear weapons is the massing of the first strike because of the fear of destruction of weapons carriers in places of deployment.

                    Not IMHO.
            2. opus
              opus 23 May 2016 13: 31
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              that burn false targets with x-rays

              Tin. belay
              Dreams of an x-ray or gamma laser?
              Sadness: the truth has not yet been invented:
              1.Absolute reflector (well, if you do not take JSC in the "Land of crimson clouds" of the Strugatsky brothers)
              2. Translucent reflector for RI
              3.X-ray resonator
              4. an x-ray generator (of such power, if you do not take a USB stick) exists in only one version: a nuclear charge
              5. Well and so, on trifles: prisms, Kerr cells for RI
  • Karabas
    Karabas 22 May 2016 08: 05
    +2
    Data on this "author" are publicly available. You just have to do nothing, type the name of this "expert" in a search engine, and everything will open to you. To begin with, you need to click on the link to the source, and "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" will open for you, but everything else is in turn. Now on the topic: I am certainly not an expert in this area, but why "bullet" a salvo of nuclear missiles from submarines is clearly a big question? Such things only happen on tests to confirm or deny certain data. In reality, such things happen very rarely, and whoever said that in Soviet times we were only told the truth, and whether they were told anything at all, so the article is clearly ordered.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 22 May 2016 08: 54
      +2
      Quote: Karabas
      Data on this "author" are publicly available. You just have to do nothing, type the name of this "expert" in a search engine, and everything will open to you. First, you need to click on the link to the source, and the "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" will open for you, but everything else is in turn.

      Sorry, colleague Karabas for the addition.
      It’s difficult for someone. Vladimir Gundarev. Deputy. Executive Editor of Independent Military Review

      About the author: Vladimir Alexandrovich Gundarov - captain of the 1st rank of the reserve.
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 23 May 2016 15: 02
        +2
        Quote: Amurets
        About the author: Vladimir Alexandrovich Gundarov - captain of the 1st rank of the reserve.

        A bit wider need:
        1. Graduated from the Faculty of Journalism of the Lviv Higher Military Political School.
        Probably after graduation he was appointed to the post of commander of the launch group at the PKK SN? Or at RTB in some training workshop?
        2. In 1989 he graduated from the Military-Political Academy named after V.I. Lenin.
        And then they were appointed to the post of starpom or commander of the submarine? Maximum - ZKCH. Or in the political department.
        What special knowledge in the field of the device of the ship and armament did the political separatists possess? Yes, 90% no. I don’t remember the deputies who could take control of the survivability control in the compartment, if they knew the structure of the ship in the knowledge of the ship's duty officer, not to mention the elementary issues of maneuvering.

        And what articles are you waiting for then?
    2. Gogia
      Gogia 22 May 2016 20: 36
      0
      In general, all underwater missile carriers are designed for volley. This is their main function - to make a volley, because a few minutes after it a warhead will fall into this area. The answer is inevitable. It is a volley of all missiles. Fortunately, we checked, in a similar way, the capabilities of our boats only a few times, and in full salvo only 1 time.
      1. Dzafdet
        Dzafdet 5 May 2017 14: 39
        0
        Three times! bully Another TK-20 grumbled two full ammunition. There is a video with the admiral and his abusive comments at the same time.
  • demiurg
    demiurg 22 May 2016 08: 21
    0
    Naturally, the Mace will have many more mistakes. In fact, we are creating a new rocket. Liner and Sineva worked out, and comparing Liner and Mace is about the same as comparing the Union and the Angara.
    There is a rocket worked out for decades, and there is something new.
    By the way, why did not the author write about an emergency with liquid-fuel rockets? And quite casually went about the price?

    Heptyl is loved by those who do not work with it.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • kot28.ru
    kot28.ru 22 May 2016 08: 28
    0
    The first and only salvo in full ammunition - 16 RSM-54 liquid-fuel missiles - was carried out 15 years ago strategic missile submarine "Novomoskovsk". ... Before the start of the August events in Moscow and the subsequent collapse of the USSR, 12 days remained. Today, in the Russian Navy, the launch of two missiles is already considered a “salvo”.
    I understood the author correctly, the Soviet Union collapsed 15 years ago? whatEither he’s bad with mathematics, or with history, but for this and minus the article!
    1. Gogia
      Gogia 22 May 2016 20: 42
      0
      Why are you hooked on a typo. You essentially have something to say? Such comments for the tenth and twentieth time only spoil the discussion.
  • UVB
    UVB 22 May 2016 08: 29
    +5
    RSM-54: the number of test launches from the ground stand and submarine - 58, including 17 unsuccessful (29,3%).
    Mace: 25 launches, including 11 unsuccessful (44%).
    This begs 2 questions: How many unsuccessful launches did RSM have after the first 25 launches, like Bulava, and how many would the latter have if they had 58? After all, after improvements the number of failures is reduced.
  • oops
    oops 22 May 2016 08: 54
    0
    Somewhere in the late eighties (?) - early nineties (?) The French raised a terrible scandal about the alleged theft by the Soviets of French secrets of rocket propellant. My father laughed and said that the USSR is doing the BEST rocket fuel in the world !!! And something to steal, especially from the French wow, NO sense !!!
    My father is a chemist and had the highest security clearance. Higher than most ministers ...
    As for the "backwardness" of the Mace, the author stupidly twists. Almost all countries have solid-fuel submarine missiles, but for the author it sucks ...
    1. AK64
      AK64 22 May 2016 10: 47
      +2
      he said that the USSR is doing the BEST rocket fuel in the world !!! And something to steal, especially from the French wow, NO sense !!!

      Your dad was joking.

      In almost all countries, submarine missiles are solid fuel, but for the author it sucks ...

      (1) and what "countries" make ballistic missiles for submarines? What "all countries" can you name?
      (2) You're cheating, the author didn't say "sucks". The author clearly said "this is for the rich." And the Russian Federation is a poor country, and that is why it was not worth giving up the existing one in favor of the nonexistent mythical "better".
      And even more so, it was not worth actually destroying the whole design bureau - then go and collect it.
    2. Dzafdet
      Dzafdet 5 May 2017 14: 41
      0
      The French raised a scandal about the theft of cryogenic technology. And it's true. After that, Buran flew ... laughing
  • sa-ag
    sa-ag 22 May 2016 09: 03
    +1
    The solid propellant rocket engine always loses the rocket engine in specific impulse / thrust, it wins in the price parameter
    1. oops
      oops 22 May 2016 09: 11
      +3
      In terms of specific impulse, solid fuel never equals liquid fuel, but it has many other advantages: a minimum of maintenance, instant readiness for launch, and high launch speed of a rocket.
      What is your "price"? Modern solid rocket fuel is much more expensive than hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide.
    2. Gogia
      Gogia 22 May 2016 20: 44
      0
      Especially if oxygen and hydrogen are burning!
    3. AK64
      AK64 22 May 2016 23: 33
      0
      Sorry, the thrust of the solid propellant rocket engine is usually stronger. Therefore, the smaller the rocket, the greater the advantages of solid propellant rocket engines (eresci take as an example).
      1. Operator
        Operator 23 May 2016 00: 31
        0
        In fact, liquid-propellant missiles are stronger - see "Voevoda" with 576 tons of thrust.
        The heaviest MX solid rocket with its miserable 226 tons of traction smokes bamboo bully
        1. AK64
          AK64 23 May 2016 09: 17
          0
          In fact, liquid-propellant missiles are stronger - see "Voevoda" with 576 tons of thrust.
          The heaviest MX solid rocket with its miserable 226 tons of traction smokes bamboo

          Look at the pull of the Shuttle boosters - 1200-1400ts (an example is given by a friend above).
          The thrust on the solid propellant rocket motor can be made large (increasing the burning surface), but short (it will quickly burn, however). And the specific impulse of the LRE is one third higher.

          Therefore, "averaged over a set of parameters", the advantage of liquid-propellant rocket engines on solid propellants grows with the size of the rocket
  • Yak28
    Yak28 22 May 2016 09: 07
    0
    Quote: Dmitry Potapov
    And if the fact that he wrote the truth is at least half, he must be attracted for disclosure.

    C'mon, all the secrets back in the 90s - 2000s were sold to Americans, the factories themselves were sold, so as not to die under the pressure of the Yeltsin regime. In the United States, they probably still have not learned everything. wink
    In general, it seems to me that when on TV every now and then they say "Bulava", "Topol" is the best rocket, or our planes, helicopters, ships, self-propelled guns have no analogues in the world, it's all a lie. Or our ships launched cruise missiles across Syria by the media let's lie again, missiles have no analogues, the United States did not expect, and so on. That the United States has no cruise missiles? Yes, they hammered Iraq with them many years ago, or the states did not know that Russia had cruise missiles? So after reading the article I admit that mace may be far away and not the best missile
  • Scliss
    Scliss 22 May 2016 09: 21
    0
    Novomoskovsk - shot in 1991, and not in 2001. author, go study!
  • avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 22 May 2016 09: 37
    0
    Quote: ImPerts
    Strange article. I can’t add anything else.

    The only thing that can be taken as a constant from the article is the low coefficient of successful launches of the Bulava. But no one says that the product is already 100% ready, or I missed something. It is possible and necessary to argue, but there is a customer and his terms of reference for the development, is it necessary to doubt his competence.
    1. AK64
      AK64 22 May 2016 10: 54
      +1
      But no one says that the product is already 100% ready, or I missed something.

      And as a result, the Russian Federation has NO sea-based missiles - for 15 years now they have been gone.

      Julitta is going, someday she will be. But can anyone take such a risk?

      there is a customer and his technical specifications for the development of whether it is necessary to doubt his competence.

      "Competence" of Pasha-Mercedes? Or the "competence" of Serdyukov?
      For the rollback is not something that the Motherland --- mom will be sold
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 22 May 2016 15: 15
        +1
        Quote: AK64
        And as a result, the Russian Federation has NO sea-based missiles - for 15 years now they have been gone.

        Julitta is going, someday she will be. But can anyone take such a risk?


        R-29RMU2.1 "Liner"
        Overview
        Country Russia Russia
        Family R-29
        Destination SLBM
        Developer Flag of Russia Makeeva
        Manufacturer ZMZ / KMZ
        Main characteristics
        Number of steps 3
        Xnumx length m
        Diameter 1,9 m
        Starting weight 40 tons
        Maximum range from 8300 to 11000 km
        Type of head part RGCh IN, nuclear
        The number of warheads is up to 12 low-power warheads or 4 medium-power warheads with a missile defense system [1]
        Basis 667BDRM "Dolphin"
        667BDR Kalmar
        Launch history
        Weapon Status [2]
        Launch locations of the Barents Sea
        The number of starts 2
        - successful 2
        - unsuccessful 0
        - partially unsuccessful 0
        Adopted 2014 [3]
        First launch May 20, 2011
        Last Launch September 29, 2011
  • The comment was deleted.
  • antiexpert
    antiexpert 22 May 2016 10: 12
    +1
    everything is simple - the mace is the Moscow developer, and Sineva is somewhere in the Urals - because of this, Moscow is closer to itself, and the Urals, no matter how smart products are, will always be on the hook)))
  • vabvab
    vabvab 22 May 2016 10: 16
    +2
    It is very likely that the author is "the daughter of a Russian officer." As correctly noted here, such information should have been stamped, and if there is at least something true, then the author should have been prosecuted for divulging state secrets. But most likely he is just a chatterbox, perhaps a paid one.
  • forumow
    forumow 22 May 2016 10: 20
    -1
    One of the conclusions of the developers of the first domestic intercontinental ballistic missiles comes down to the fact that a solid propellant rocket engine is a luxury that is available only to rich countries that have highly developed science and economics.

    This "luxury" has long been embodied in reality, decades ago. The fact that solid-propellant ICBMs may not be inferior to liquid ICBMs can be seen by comparing the starting / PN mass of the RT-23UTTKh and UR-100N UTTKh, which have comparable performance characteristics.
    http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/15g61/15g61.shtml
    http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/15a16/15a16.shtml
    1. forumow
      forumow 22 May 2016 11: 54
      0
      Amendment, the second link to another UR-100.
      Here is the correct one: http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/15a35/15a35.shtml
  • 89130517794
    89130517794 22 May 2016 10: 26
    +1
    The article was written apparently by one of the "Chinese" (knowledgeable people will understand this sub-floating slang). Consequently, his attitude to the topic is superimposed on the personal experience of the "operator". And this experience is based on a "huge" number of "little things" associated with the daily operation of "products", which the author does not write about, but they are clearly visible in his assessments.
    Regarding the "arbiter", in my opinion, the author quite transparently hints at the need to "listen" to the opinion of the "naval", which in the early 80s of the last century ceased to be considered (for illustration - the dying opinion of D.F. Ustinov)!
    1. xtur
      xtur 22 May 2016 12: 39
      0
      > "chinese" (knowledgeable people will understand this subtle slang)

      oh that slang! In the GSVG so called infantry :-)
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 22 May 2016 18: 09
        +1
        The Chinese - missile warhead-2, the Romanians - mine-torpedo warhead-3 ...
    2. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 23 May 2016 16: 33
      +1
      The Chinese will not write this. Of the troubles he ...
  • rudolff
    rudolff 22 May 2016 10: 34
    +2
    The author voiced out loud what everyone already knows about, but it is not accepted to speak. The recognition of the Bulava SLBM project as erroneous and, as a consequence, its closure, means a slap in the face to the country's top leadership. Therefore, it will never be closed, even if the rocket flies every other time. Rather, they will quietly offer a "new generation" SLBM, but they will not return either to Bark or to the possible re-equipment of Boreyev under RMU3.
    1. xtur
      xtur 22 May 2016 13: 00
      +2
      > The author voiced out loud what everyone already knows, but it is not accepted to speak.

      I got the feeling that the main argument of the author is based on an analogy with the structure of the land component of ICBMs, where the presence of heavy ICBMs is necessary for overall stability.
      And in the Navy, in fact, there are only analogues of light missiles.

      That is, his argument is based on the requirements of the general stability of nuclear deterrence forces

      given that the author is naval / military, that means when he says that there is no arbiter in the country for strategic deterrence issues, he actually puts forward the claim of certain circles of the armed forces to the country's top leadership for the improper organization of this issue.

      So as such, this article certainly deserves attention
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 22 May 2016 13: 19
        +3
        Quote: xtur
        given that the author is naval / military

        already wrote above -
        author by birth "political instructor" and "journalist", with all the merits.

        Do you really think that there are no people in the country who do not work out these problems professionally:
        - specialized civil / military institutes (research institutes), design bureau (MIT, Mias, Reutov ...), design bureau at factories
        who claims, opposes, etc. etc.
        - do you think that cooks with humanitarians-kreakly should "rub" these problems and questions?

        In the opinion of a professional, each type of RK, both on TT and LPRE, has its own "+" and "-" Let the truth be born in the disputes of the professional and the corresponding SWORD is created!
        As the saying goes "to a locksmith, a locksmith ... and a speech to a political instructor, but only in his audience" (c)

        In this context, the author TAKES MUCH FOR MYSELF, and from other people's words and not for those ears!
        1. xtur
          xtur 22 May 2016 13: 47
          +1
          > Do you really think that there are no people in the country who do not professionally work on these problems:

          Before I state my opinion, I read all discussion, and someone said that the author captain.

          And you inattentively read - the essence of my post is that the author lays claim to the existing decision-making system.

          Actually, this is exactly what the rudolff, with whose opinion I supported

          > - do you think that these problems and questions should be "rubbed" by cooks with humanities-kreakly on a broad view?

          no, of course, but if some circles in the armed forces, through the mouth of the author, make claims to the existing process of adoption, then this at least should be taken into account and try to understand what this means.
          And the fact that the navy, starting from the 70s, removed from the decision-making process, said the same rudolff, and I essentially solidified with this


          and yet you did not pay attention to the fact that there is precisely my point of view - the main argument of the author of the article is based on the general stability of strategic nuclear forces, which requires diverse ICBMs (the structure of naval ICBMs in a sense should repeat the structure of land), and "Bulava" is clearly an analogue of light ICBMs
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 22 May 2016 10: 38
    +2
    One can argue to the point of hoarseness - which rocket is better - solid fuel, or liquid fuel. The reality is that we, in submarine shipbuilding, have taken the "solid fuel" path. Liquid propellant rockets require a new carrier. "Northwind" is not suitable for this. It is impossible to upgrade it for a liquid-propellant rocket. Project 667BDR will go down in history over the next 5 years, and project 667BDRM will last 10, maximum 15 years. As a result, by 2030, we will have one Bulava in the NSNF. Making a new project for a liquid-propellant rocket is expensive. This is probably why the Bulava missile is being modernized now. News flashed by about "Bulava-45", with a mass of 45 tons and an increased throw weight. There was unconfirmed information that the construction of the "Boreyev" will continue, but according to an improved design - 955B.
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 22 May 2016 10: 58
      +8
      You are wrong. GRTs Makeeva proposed its own version of Sineva-2, R-29 RMU3 with a "dry" start for the Borey mines without any significant restructuring of the ship. Moreover, the naval combat launch complex itself on the 955th project 3P-21 is Makeevsky to the last screw or resistor. There would be a will ...
  • Proud.
    Proud. 22 May 2016 10: 42
    +2
    "... The first and only volley with a full ammunition load - 16 liquid-fuel missiles RSM-54 - was performed 15 years ago by the strategic missile submarine Novomoskovsk ..." - August 6, 1991, 25 years ago.
    "... The tests were carried out in order to check the" behavior "of the cruiser after it had, within 90 seconds, freed from almost 645 tons of" jet "cargo, replaced by sea water. And the cruiser behaved at five-plus, and all the mass-dimensional dummy warheads successfully “hit” conventional targets ... "- 2 combat R-29RM and 14 ballistic-equivalent missile models.
  • Berkut24
    Berkut24 22 May 2016 10: 46
    +7
    1) Firstly, the author gives an incorrect definition for "Bulava". The rocket is not solid-fuel, to be honest, but a combined one. The first stage is yes - solid fuel. But the last one is liquid.
    2) The essence of the Bulava reliability issue rests not on the complexity of the structure or design errors, but on the production technology, labor discipline and the general culture of the technological process. It is strange from the outset to say that we will never have a culture of production and therefore we need to end up with solid fuel.
    3) "Bulava" has good characteristics, which cannot be compared with the same "Trident". The task was set to ensure the launch of the rocket directly when the nuclear submarine moves under water. Therefore, the Boreya launching shafts are inclined. Hence the special requirements for the rocket body and for the launch system in general. Maneuvering the missile at the initial stage and maneuvering the blocks at the final stage is due to the fact that the American missile defense system is still unable to track non-ballistic targets, i.e. everything that is not ballistics is dropped from the escort. In this regard, our new Voronezh early warning systems have gone much further. Plus, the Americans have serious problems with identifying false targets and warheads at the final stage of the flight. So to say that Bulava's missile defense system is weak is not worth it.
    4) It is strange to refer to the opinion of the former Minister of Defense, who had about 50 modifications of tanks alone in the fields, and in the fleet the variety of submarines and surface ships perplexed not only our potential enemy, but also our suppliers and financiers. Actually, Ustinov’s approach to financing many projects was one of the factors that ultimately happened in the financial collapse of the country.
    The absence at that time of a reliable and efficient solid-fuel engine against the background of "Trident" did not mean that such an engine was not possible, but that we were lagging behind technologically. But the problem was - it is enough to compare the number of excesses with missiles on nuclear submarines between us and the Americans. I will not list the number of dead and damaged boats and injured personnel. A liquid-propellant rocket is more dangerous during operation and storage - and this is a fact. I served as an officer at the Kapustinoyarsk test site and I know what I am saying.
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 22 May 2016 11: 43
      +6
      Berkut, what kind of labor discipline with the culture of production are you talking about? The rocket is produced at the same Votkinsk plant, where Poplars and Yars are built, which fly quite normally and have no problems with "labor discipline". Not everyone knows, but after the transformation of the MIT Institute into the MIT state corporation, among other enterprises and research centers, the Votkinsk plant itself was transferred to it. It is for the purpose of complete control by the developer of the production stage. So now it is one whole. The problem of the complex is not in production, but in the project itself. This is the first thing. And secondly, all SLBMs are launched from a submerged position "from the ship's course", there is no know-how here. The depth assault rifle will simply not keep the ship in a no-move position after firing the very first missiles. And the mines are vertical. This is not Granite.
      1. lelikas
        lelikas 22 May 2016 12: 35
        0
        Quote: rudolff
        Golden eagle, what kind of labor discipline are you talking about with a production culture?

        It is likely that, if I am not mistaken, according to Rogozin, in order to complete the tests, it was necessary to assemble five absolutely identical missiles.
        1. Tektor
          Tektor 22 May 2016 13: 44
          +2
          To be honest, the main point of this opus has completely eluded me. What did the author want to say? That the mace is not reliable? So it is. Till. It is necessary to bring it to a better state. What will be done is obvious. A mace is not valuable in itself, but as a missile system, which includes a boat. And the requirements to the whole complex are important. Indeed, if a boat can be easily detected and sunk, then what is the use of super missiles on board?
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 22 May 2016 13: 44
        +1
        Quote: rudolff
        The rocket is produced at the same Votkinsk plant, where they are building Poplars with Yars, which normally fly normally

        ... small clarification - Poplars aki as land. It is not a simple matter to teach their descendants to take off from under water, especially considering that Bark and P-39 were produced in other places ...
      3. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 23 May 2016 16: 42
        +2
        Quote: rudolff
        And secondly, all SLBMs are launched from the submerged position "from the ship's course"

        Do not lie to us! Look into our eyes! laughing But what about the surface position? And from the pier? And out of the wormwood?

        And anyway, guys, stop calling the product liquid fuel, but the rumor hurts. Association with loose stools (sorry ...). Such rockets have always been called liquid rockets. Liquid rocket, liquid rocket engine ...
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 23 May 2016 17: 46
          +4
          Andrei, I specifically spoke about underwater launch and about underwater launch with the course of the ship. That this is an accepted practice for all projects, and not a great achievement of the Borei / Mace designers. About the surface start, as it were, of course. From the surface, it all started on the first missile carriers. But with wormwood ... Andrey, you are a rocket launcher, you know better, but ... One or two missiles in a salvo, but more? The boat will begin to walk, the depth machine in the corridor will not hold.
          1. Andrey NM
            Andrey NM 23 May 2016 18: 42
            +3
            Yes, I'm joking :). In general, when Rachuk shot from the pole, they broke the ice with a hump and shot. In the wormwood which automatic depth? The situation is above water. And then all the windows in the wheelhouse disappear somewhere :).
            1. rudolff
              rudolff 23 May 2016 20: 02
              +2
              But there were attempts to shoot through wormwood! Here is an excerpt from the memoirs. Gadzhievskie.
              “The submarine commander, Captain 1st Rank Arsentiev, tells about further events:“ Measurements of the ice hole showed: 1 km long, up to three hundred meters wide. a missile-carrying cruiser could get up. They surfaced without comment, but still it turned out ...
              When visually inspecting the water area from the bridge, it turned out that they surfaced not in a hole, but in an ice crack, and not along it, but across. The bow of the boat rested against one edge of the ice field, and the stern remained pressed down by a large hummock. But ice movement was not observed, and the crack did not narrow. The missile deck was free of ice and ready for opening the shaft covers. In order for the roll and trim to be zero, the submarine was left on the ocean surface only with a blown middle group, and the bow and stern CHB were not blown. After assessing the situation, they reported to the shore that ... August at ... hours a 3-rocket salvo would be fired. Within one hour, we received a response from the shore: I authorize the launch of missiles within the specified timeframe, and at the same time a signal came to unlock the missiles. The rockets were launched without comment. I watched the exit of missiles from the mines through a periscope, the upper conning tower hatch was battened down. We received a message from the shore that all three missiles arrived on the battlefield with deviations from the aiming points within the technical parameters. Shooting rating - "excellent".
              Our shooting showed that it is not necessary to look for large wormwood for missile firing and to have ideal conditions for the surface launch of missiles. You can emerge in any ice crack (try to expand it by explosions of torpedoes), providing the opening of the covers of the mines, and the necessary conditions for firing on the parameters of the trim and roll.
              But we were ordered to carry out an underwater launch of missiles (if possible).
               I think that it is impossible to do this in Arctic conditions by observing the conditions for launching missiles, where it is necessary to withstand: immersion depth - 50 meters, stroke of 5 knots, zero roll and trim, which will require a huge ice hole. "
              They did not dare to shoot through wormwood. About the use of Marble, for keeping at a depth without a move, there was not even a word.
    2. Dzafdet
      Dzafdet 5 May 2017 14: 48
      0
      A mace is a solid fuel rocket in all stages. but you didn’t serve in the Navy and you don’t know that after the incident with R-27, measures were taken and so far there hasn’t been ANY INCIDENT with R-29xx! bully
      1. Berkut24
        Berkut24 5 May 2017 15: 05
        0
        I really did not serve in the Navy, but was related to rocketry. 3 stages, two of them are solid fuel, the third maneuvering for breeding the warheads, "scattering" elements to overcome missile defense and just to disrupt the trajectory of tracking on ground radars, sharpened by ballistic blanks. And maneuvering implies a pulsed mode of engine operation, which is not possible with solid fuel.
        1. Dzafdet
          Dzafdet 7 May 2017 11: 12
          0
          That is why Solomon fiddled with her for a long time. They made a solid fuel multi-mode engine for the breeding stage. They do not have and did not have liquid stages in rockets.
  • oxotnuk86
    oxotnuk86 22 May 2016 11: 08
    +2
    Put a minus. A lot of dirt without all the information (secrecy has not been canceled by anyone) to draw conclusions is a bunch in calm weather.
  • Resistance
    Resistance 22 May 2016 11: 19
    +3
    Quote: kugelblitz
    The mace is the development of the Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering (MIT), naturally they will use their best practices.


    MIT using an administrative resource (Sergeeva) received an order (did not win) on a topic in which they are not specialists. They themselves were stunned when they began to understand what they needed to do. So, their racket flew from the RPK CH thanks to the same Makeevtsy, Semikhatovtsy, Rubin and NSR. See BSR, BASU, ship systems.

    It would be a normal state and political will, would start to put D-9 at 955 at any given moment, and would not be mistaken.
    And so: o (((
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 22 May 2016 12: 19
      +2
      And now, the Makeyevites were in the opposite position with Sarmat. MIT does not matter what resources it used, Yars and Rubezh can definitely be considered successful missiles. And I also consider Mace successful, no matter how much she was blamed. I think MIT will help them in such an unusual situation for them, tea is not foreign adversaries.
      At one time they drove to the Chelomeevsk Design Bureau, but now it is clear that the Design Bureau developed really outstanding missiles, which only the P-5 family and subsequent ones cost. Not to mention the Malachites, Granites and Onyxes. Or I hope that Zircon will be the long-awaited breakthrough into hypersound.
  • Operator
    Operator 22 May 2016 11: 28
    +1
    Liquid rockets are superior to solid rockets in virtually all respects without exception:
    - lack of decomposition of fuel during the entire period of operation;
    - the best weight perfection (0,061 kg of throw weight per one ton of starting weight for "Sineva" versus 0,047 for Trident II);
    - Better thrust-to-weight ratio (2,5 tons of thrust per 1 ton of starting weight for Sineva versus 1,5 for Trident II) and, accordingly, less acceleration time in the active section of the trajectory (article by Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Independent Military Review, captain first rank retired V. Gundarov is not familiar with the issue).

    The funniest thing about the other - solid-propellant missiles with separate warheads "Yars", "Bulava", Minuteman III and Trident II are equipped with liquid fuel rocket engine of the stage of breeding warheads, which makes them absolutely the same operational requirements as for "Sineva", "Liner", "Voevoda" and "Sarmat" am
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 22 May 2016 11: 53
      +3
      Does Trident have a liquid fuel stage? I don’t argue, I don’t know, but it seems that he has all three cruise lines on TT, and the "bus" is on powder gas generators. Nevermind. The operation of liquid fuel vehicles with ampouled tanks is actually simpler, there are no such stringent requirements for the temperature regime of storage, the microclimate in the starting cup.
    2. Rus2012
      Rus2012 22 May 2016 12: 11
      0
      Quote: Operator
      The funniest thing is that the Yars, Bulava, Minuteman III and Trident II split-warhead solid-propellant missiles are equipped with a liquid-propellant rocket engine of the warhead disengagement stage,

      ... a small clarification -
      missiles of the "Pioneer" complex were all TT, incl. breeding unit.
      On some TT RK, dilution steps on liquid monofuel.
      1. Operator
        Operator 22 May 2016 12: 21
        -1
        I agree - Trident 2 has solid-fuel engines of the dilution stage with thrust vector regulation.

        For interest, can you name the solid-fuel rockets with rgch and liquid propellant rocket engines that are currently in service with mono-fuel separation stages?
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 22 May 2016 13: 53
          0
          Quote: Operator
          Mono-fuel separation stage LRE?



          RS-24 Yars / Topol-M source - http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-430.html
          The platform for breeding warheads - perhaps a monopropellant engine or solid propellant rocket engine or several low-thrust rocket engines. There was information in the media about the use of a "unique variable-thrust engine". Development of a fuel charge - NPO "Soyuz" (Dzerzhinsk).

          There is a possibility that a liquid mono-propellant propulsion system is used at the stage of disengagement of warheads, similar to the Yuzhnoye design bureau (Dnepropetrovsk) developed in the late 1980s for the Krechet aircraft missile system, the Topol-M ICBM (disengagement unit Such a propulsion system provides two modes of operation of the main stage engine with deep throttling (15 times) of the high-thrust engine chamber, which reduces the gas-dynamic effect on detachable warheads. the "pulling" scheme.
          Fuel Type - PRONIT
    3. opus
      opus 22 May 2016 13: 21
      +4
      Quote: Operator
      The funniest thing is that the Yars, Bulava, Minuteman III and Trident II solid-propellant missiles with separable warheads are equipped with a liquid-propellant rocket engine for the breeding stage of warheads, which makes them


      The funniest thing is that they say = this:


      Solid fuel engine 15D161 "warhead" (most likely - stages of breeding warheads) ICBMs RS-20V "Voevoda" - SS-18 SATAN. Museum of the Strategic Missile Forces, Pervomaisk, Ukraine
      RS-20V "Voevoda" liquid ICBM
      hi

      Quote: Operator
      The same is cool in another

      The coolest thing is that the propulsion system of the Mk4Vk5 dilution unit is

      four gas generators and 16 “slotted” nozzles. Four nozzles located on the top and four on the bottom are designed to disperse the dilution step and stabilize it by pitch and yaw. The remaining eight nozzles are designed to create roll control efforts. The gas generators were developed by Atlantic research, they are powder gas generators with a specific impulse of the order of 236 s and are combined in two blocks. Block “A”, consisting of two gas generators, starts operation after the separation of the third stage solid propellant rocket engine. Block “B” of two more gas generators is turned on after the termination of operation of block “A”. The outflow of gas from the nozzles is produced continuously. Control efforts arise due to the overlap / opening of the nozzle part.

      Quote: Operator
      For interest, can you name the solid-fuel rockets with rgch and liquid propellant rocket engines that are currently in service with mono-fuel separation stages?


      what a complexity.
      Replace UDMH and AT with monofuel, for example, fly hydrogen peroxide.

      mono-fuel engine or solid propellant rocket engine or several small thrust rocket engines ...

      For reference.
      For RS-24 "Yars" we cannot confidently say what is there, maybe.

      BB dilution platform options: mono-fuel engine or solid propellant solid propellant rocket engine or several small thrust rocket engines ...


      here so
  • opus
    opus 22 May 2016 13: 00
    +2
    Quote: Author
    Three myths about the "Mace"

    MYTH # 1 It is not necessary to put the first picture "Myth" in the article, which has nothing to do with Bulava, nor with solid propellant rocket motors, nor with the RF Ministry of Defense in general.

    If my vision / memory doesn’t fail me, is this a bench test of the RD-180 for the Atlas 5 launch vehicle by competition?

    Oh god ... where only those "shoved his RD-180:

    and in three-phase and in NRE and in RDD


    Quote: Author
    Thrown weight is the most important parameter characterizing the combat effectiveness of a rocket, as well as its energy capabilities.

    Not certainly in that way:
    CVO is the most important parameter.
    Decreasing the QWO by 2 times gives a DECREASE in the power of the YBG by 4 times and accordingly.
    those. cast weight decreases and / or range increases

    Quote: Author
    - I still believe. Only we can’t reach the Americans. And there was nothing to push. Our lot is liquid fuel. With our capabilities you can’t do anything better.

    10 times +++++++
    We are leaders (in any case) in rocket engines, especially in combat use.
    And it was necessary to remain them.
    Again, the Americans divorced us

    Quote: Author
    Next, we dwell on the statement about the advantage of solid-fuel rockets in the duration of the active section, survivability in retaliation, and resistance in the active section

    This is not a myth. This is a reality given to us in sensation.
    1. The active section is smaller (it’s understandably gigantic traction, less mass). The solid propellant rocket engine is the whole stage (or rocket) of the solid rocket engine.
    If a debunker of myths shows me a thrust rocket engine in 14000 tf. I take my words back
    for combat missiles, overload is not very critical (no people, no fragile spacecraft), so do the burning area more (or its change is specific) and figach on adversary with 10-130g
    1. opus
      opus 22 May 2016 13: 05
      +3
      2.RN with a liquid-propellant rocket engine thin-walled wafer design filled with liquid under pressure (pressurization)
      TCs are usually self-igniting, burn intensely prior to
      RDTT thicker-walled construction filled with hard-hardened v-vom type of rubber / resin


      / I deliberately brought SRB photos, maybe they are, but this does not change the essence /
      To set it on fire, specific conditions are needed.
      to burn this mondule, it is necessary to sweat to break through.
      One (or 10) through hole will not lead to the breakdown of the base
      1. Dzafdet
        Dzafdet 7 May 2017 11: 14
        0
        Sea-based missiles with LRE tanks have a thickness of 4,5-5 mm ... bully
    2. Operator
      Operator 22 May 2016 14: 55
      0
      Show us the solid-propellant engine of the first stage of a ballistic missile with a thrust of 14000 tons, well, or to a terminal of 576 tons bully
      1. opus
        opus 22 May 2016 23: 41
        +1
        Quote: Operator
        Show us the solid-propellant engine of the first stage of a ballistic missile with a thrust of 14000 tons, well, or to a terminal of 576 tons

        Operaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
        Op.
        Well, do not smack nonsense.
        KU \\ RE \: the best thing about artillery is it, I’ll ask the youngest son to deliver one +
        T-34 and T-14 are top-classics.
        monitors and virtual helmet = classic in 3
        (I began to consider myself a nerd, what didn’t it reach me ?. PS. they are likely to affect: high growth, old age also reaches the brain crying )
        But are you with your education (or lie?) smile
        1.And you need BDB starting weight in 900 tons (ST about 100tn)
        Quote: Operator
        well, or at the extreme 576 tons
        with a starting weight of 300 tons (30 tons of weight)?
        Why the hell do you want our PBCs to be reduced to 5-110 silos and to 5-10 missiles?
        N or Americans, moreover (here I am for it!)?
        Be of good cheer!
        2.And you show me the ICBM with LRE with mono LRE with thrust in 1400ts.
        Hai with him the ICBM ... show the PH.
        Will show?
        then:

        3. Question behind the scenes: why is this necessary?

        Quote: opus
        Decreasing the QWO by 2 times gives a DECREASE in the power of the YBG by 4 times and accordingly.
      2. AK64
        AK64 22 May 2016 23: 45
        +1
        Show us the solid-propellant engine of the first stage of a ballistic missile with a thrust of 14000 tons, well, or to a terminal of 576 tons

        Well, the orus also said - these are the side pushers of the Shuttle. Just went to 14000t. ICBMs just do not need so much
        1. Operator
          Operator 23 May 2016 00: 35
          0
          So this is exactly what Anton (opus'a) told me about - like it's not shit about ballistic missiles to punch brains with launch vehicles laughing
          1. opus
            opus 23 May 2016 01: 49
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            . Just went to 14000ts. ICBMs just do not need so much

            Intelligent person +
            Quote: opus
            1.And you need BDB starting weight in 900 tons (ST about 100tn)
            Quote: Operator
            Well, or to the extreme number of 576 tons with a starting weight of 300 tons (30 tons of abandoned weight)?
            Why the hell do you want our PBCs to be reduced to 5-110 silos and to 5-10 missiles?
            N or Americans, moreover (here I am for it!)?
            Be of good cheer!

            Quote: Operator
            I started - like not horseradish in the subject of ballistic missiles compost brains rocket launchers

            You show me the rocket launcher with such a thrust and I will calmly receive my miserable pension ...
            BGM-75 AICBM (Golden Arrow) ---> LGM-118A Peacekeeper
            Krassava - QUO 90

            nightmare of assholes ("servants of the people" - that they lived 2 orders of magnitude better than the PEOPLE!) from the Politburo

    3. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 22 May 2016 16: 00
      +1
      Quote: opus
      10 times +++++++
      We are leaders (in any case) in rocket engines, especially in combat use.
      And it was necessary to remain them.
      Again, the Americans divorced us

      And why was the P-39 so bad, so that it is 2 meters longer than Triden-2? Two meters is not important at all for the world's oceans, besides, the modernized R-39 "Bark" was completely Russian production.
      For the author of the article, in 1998, the Northern Fleet launched a salvo launch of 20 R-39 missiles with SSBN pr.941.
      1. opus
        opus 22 May 2016 23: 58
        +1
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        And why was the P-39 so bad that it is 2 meters longer than Triiden-2? Two meters for the world's oceans does not matter at all,

        1. Later Trident 2,1 and even Polarisa later, a lot. Yes and worse
        Logistics and cost of production.
        Money mother their children


        2.QSO- sucks
        Quote: opus
        Decreasing the QWO by 2 times gives a DECREASE in the power of the YBG by 4 times and accordingly.

        3 Dual Mode 8-chamber LRE 3Д64 open circuit with a single inclusion and the ability to repeatedly switch from mode to mode.
        those. cast weight decreases and / or range increases
        "KPD" -sho loves so much and not a fig in it "operator
        (Operator -au: when I sent Tesla's efficiency, I counted the efficiency of electric power plants: 0,4-0,7% "... but when I pointed to the efficiency of the internal combustion engine, for some reason I did not pay attention to the" efficiency of obtaining gasoline / diesel fuel "
        T.ch. Tesla's efficiency = 0,8%, ICE efficiency = 0,23% -0,4% ==== Conclusion aaatstoy, w / o 10 years 45-60% cars from 2 + billion atvto will be electro. Ilon bablosa cut down not measured)
        3. Have you seen PARB SSBN pr. 941?

        -this is no longer SSBAR ... This is a cow for launching ICBMs from the pier. WHY TO BUILD A SSBN THEN?
        Compare with Elk.
        How many SSBN pr. 941 are built? How many Elk?
        Who is still alive?
        Who is easier to destroy?
        Qty on the media?

        Again, money ..... (the USSR rested in a Bose, the US blooms and smells ... with Trident2 and)

        "Land of dreams" - how all our warehouses of the GOS were thrown, during 3 MV.
        Fantasy? Yes . However, "advice loves to concentrate everything in one and the big" - fact
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        in 1998 in the Northern Fleet, the 20 R-39 missiles were launched from the SSBN 941 SSBN.

        Louboutin-henna

        1997, 2 times and... In that I hardly believe. Times were "so-so"

        ================================================== ==========
        off-topic:
        1. All with the victory of the Russian Federation over the USA !!!!
        S United States is engaged in oral sex with herself. They don't get used to
        Or in Polish:

        2. What a pity that our neighbors (Finns) lost to the maple leaf children ..
        - perhaps the last normal nation of GayEurope.
        I am happy for ours, I am in mourning for the neighbors, I will go get drunk in a double dose. THIS IS THE REASON!
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 23 May 2016 14: 47
          +2
          Quote: opus
          1. Later Trident 2,1 and Polaris later, a lot.

          I honestly did not understand what was happening later.
          Quote: opus
          Dual-mode 8-chamber open-circuit 3D64 rocket engine

          We kind of compare solid fuel.
          Quote: opus
          .You saw PARB PLARB pr.941 saw?

          No live.
          Quote: opus
          This is a cow to launch ICBMs from the pier. WHY TO BUILD A SSBN THEN?
          Compare with Elk.

          Why compare a multi-purpose strategist? Maybe it’s better to compare it with Ohio, then in length they are the same in height. The Shark is a couple of meters higher and two times wider, this is not critical for the ocean.
          Quote: opus
          Who is easier to destroy?

          Of course, Ohio is easier to destroy.
          Quote: opus
          In 1997, 2a times and ... B, which I hardly believe. Times were "so-so"

          Yes, it’s true, in 1998 there were only three, they still fired in 2001, the Shark is much more maneuverable than all modifications of the 667 project., KVO is a very big secret, no one will reveal the true meaning.
          If boats and missiles were shitty Americans would not have fled with a bunch of dough to saw and recycle them.
          So they stood at the pier.
          1. opus
            opus 24 May 2016 00: 18
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            I honestly did not understand what was happening later.

            By a government decree, the D-19 complex with the P-39 missile was adopted 20 May 1983 city Trial operation of the D-19 complex on the main SSBN of the 941 TK-208 avenue was carried out from 1983 to 1984. In April 1984, the USSR Lenin Prize was awarded to designers and industry representatives who took part in the creation of the complex. Serial production and deployment of missile systems with SSBNs pr.941 completed in 1989
            UGM-96A Trident I C-4 and US Navy weapons adopted in 1979 year

            with UGM-133A I made a mistake she in 1990 PNV
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            We kind of compare solid fuel.

            This is for the operator ("and on ICBMs with solid propellants they stand at the bus LPRE !!!!"), but also has a direct relation to the R-39 / 3M65 - this is the remote control. Breeding stages of the R-39 warheads

            +
            Roll Control Engines, Engines breeding the head of the rocket. RDTT 3Ш-14, 3Ш-62, 3Ш-04-10, 3Ш-05-10, 15Х351, 15Х351М, 15Х324, 15ХXN
            Type of fuel - mixed

            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Why compare a multi-purpose strategist? Maybe with Ohio

            mixed up, the glass would be superfluous. Of course oh
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Of course, Ohio is easier to destroy.

            error,
            If only 941 are not standing at the pier in Severomorsk.

            Size matters: noise is proportional to wetted surface

            Surface displacement - 23 tons; underwater - 000 tons. The figures clearly indicate a huge stock of buoyancy - more than 20 thousand tons of water are pumped to immerse the “Sharks" in the ballast tanks of the boat. As a result, the Shark received the funny nickname "water carrier" in the Navy.
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            If boats and rockets were crappy a

            Well, I didn’t say that they are shitty. The nuclear submarines were created according to a giant missile (in terms of dimensions, we lose Trident2), we got a giant nuclear submarines, it costs a lot of money, its maintenance is the same
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 28 May 2016 01: 14
              0
              Quote: opus
              error,
              If only 941 are not standing at the pier in Severomorsk.

              There is no mistake, the Shark was not inferior in noise to Ohio while it was new, but in the harsh 90s there was no time for repairs, which led to increased noise, the Shark has five solid hulls, missile shafts are located between the two main ones, and in Ohio they are built into a solid hull, etc. .d.
              Quote: opus
              Well, I didn’t say that they were shitty. The nuclear submarine was created by a giant missile (in terms of dimensions, we lose Trident2)

              Trident-2 appeared six years later and also has very decent dimensions two meters shorter than the R-39; in addition, the T-2 flies 1000 km less, in the picture on the same scale, 1 Shark below Ohio
  • Reklastik
    Reklastik 22 May 2016 13: 05
    +2
    Quote: kugelblitz
    not subject to gradual decrease in thrust during fuel production

    Why should thrust drop?
    1. Simple
      Simple 22 May 2016 13: 58
      0
      He simply has poor knowledge of solid propellant rocket engines and geometry in particular. Victim of the ege?
  • serverny
    serverny 22 May 2016 14: 15
    +5
    What a terrible heresy, built on lies, distortions and omissions.
    The article is a minus, and to those who have such low-level material copy-paste here, a lot of disrespect for karma.
    In place of admins, I would have introduced a rule to issue yellow cards for such "cranberries" from jaundiced publications like "Independent Military Review".
  • Old26
    Old26 22 May 2016 15: 01
    0
    Quote: kugelblitz
    At the same time, Trident-2, as I heard, the maximum range is far from being fully loaded.

    "Blue" "too

    Quote: bmv04636
    when they gave design to this rocket to those who were not belmes in the marine theme, they got what they got.

    Everyone once started something for the first time. GRC also did not immediately start with SLBMs, but with the land R-11. Nevertheless, MIT was engaged in marine issues, although not SLBMs. And what is the reason that MIT was engaged? HZ. Maybe adminresurs (undercover games) maybe something else

    Quote: Andrey NM
    Well, if you think logically, how much do heavy ICBMs weigh there? Under 200 tons? And how to drag it to the mine and then load it? I think it's easier to bring an empty one, and then refuel and screw on the "head".

    You are absolutely right. That is exactly what is being done. It is put in the silo empty, refueled, amputated, put the head ...

    Quote: AK64
    Just a design bureau named after Makeev, due to its geographical location in the Urals, in the art of lobbying could not be close to MIT (in Moscow).

    The problem is not in geographic location, but in the "weight" of the leader. At one time there were persistent rumors that Makeev was able to "eat" Tyurin only because he was a member of the Central Committee. But geographically it was about the same. Makeev in the Urals, Tyurin - in the northern capital

    Quote: pft, fkb
    Solomonenko generally some kind of wrecker, a monopoly of horseradish

    Actually, Solomonov, not Solomonenko. And who else could he be, if not a pest, once a monopolist. Based on your logic in the last century, Makeev was such a pest, since he was also a monopolist ... laughing

    Quote: 11 black
    In addition, it is the Bulava that will be the weapon of the Barguzin BZHRK - so in any case it came in handy.

    Have you already been informed that it is "Bulava" and not "Yars" or "Rubezh"? Needless to say, what is still unknown. The only thing that was said in this regard was that the rocket would be created taking into account the developments in Bulava, Yars, and Rubezh
    1. opus
      opus 23 May 2016 02: 05
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      "Blue" "too

      Vl.! .... comparing ICBMs with rocket engines and solid propellant rocket engines is not correct
      Quote: Old26
      It is put in the silo empty, refueled, amputated, put the head ...

      + Vladimir ... revealed a military secret!
      Not a single ampulophil could have thought of:
      -How to carry 200tn (12 tn / axis max m / a by the way and this is not counting bridges (we feel worse))
      -What kind of a patrion is lucky 130 t AT + UDMH for additional?

      Quote: Old26
      Quote: 11 black
      In addition, it is the Bulava that will be the weapon of the Barguzin BZHRK - so in any case it came in handy.
      Have you already been informed that it is "Bulava" and not "Yars" or "Rubezh"?

      black are you stupid in life?
      Why barguzinU nozzle with an extension of -3,5 (5,5) atm
      Why does he need xc resistance to the ocean environment?
      Why does he need a shortening in length in 11,5 m (and essno broadening in diameter)?


      ?

      I'm seriously starting to fear for the future of the country

      crying


      how it all turns out-xs

      ?
  • Old26
    Old26 22 May 2016 15: 07
    0
    Quote: Verdun
    And in the event that the Bulava still remains problematic, neither the Liner, nor Sineva, nor the new missile of large dimensions can be pushed into these boats.

    We cannot know this a priori. The modernization potential of the launchers on the Borea is unknown. In what you are right - "Blue" and "Liner" cannot be crammed there - another type of start. And another solid fuel - why not, if its dimensions are suitable. The same residents of Makeyev offered "Sinev-2"

    Quote: 11 black
    With regard to the Mace - a volley of two missiles is the sum of 1500000 tons of TNT (10 warheads in each missile, each 150kt) or twenty cities destroyed with a million people - is that ridiculous?

    "Trim the sturgeon." During Putin's visit to Votkinsk, he was shown, in addition to everything, the stage of breeding the Bulava. Calculate how many seats there are for the BB

    Quote: forumow
    RT-23 (CC-22) "Well done",

    Small clarification. The name "Well done" refers to the 15Zh60 and 15Zh61 or RT-23 UTTH missiles, not the RT-23. But the missiles with the designation RT-23 had the indexes 15Ж44 and 15Ж52. And one more thing - the enemy index SS-24. And here is our contractual - RS-22
  • cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 22 May 2016 15: 34
    0
    Some kind of dr-r-moed article cropped. It is interesting to know by whose order? Not really in our military-industrial complex, is there such a struggle between liquid-propellant and solid-fuel companies? Straight to the blood. Then at least a competent torpedo would have been invited, otherwise I’ve sprinkled some crap.
  • Old26
    Old26 22 May 2016 17: 51
    +1
    Quote: cherkas.oe
    Some kind of dr-r-moed article cropped. It is interesting to know by whose order? Not really in our military-industrial complex, is there such a struggle between liquid-propellant and solid-fuel companies? Straight to the blood. Then at least a competent torpedo would have been invited, otherwise I’ve sprinkled some crap.

    Do you think not? There has always been friction (struggle) between design bureaus and trends. Yes, and more recently there was a struggle between supporters and opponents of the BZHRK ...
    1. cherkas.oe
      cherkas.oe 22 May 2016 18: 05
      0
      Quote: Old26
      There has always been friction (struggle) between design bureaus and trends.

      Then you can understand Stalin. When he needed a result, not a civil strife and a war of compromising materials, luminaries in sharashki determined, together with his subordinates, what they would do, not fight for the primacy. And he would do it right, otherwise state funds would not fall on them.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 22 May 2016 20: 04
        -1
        Quote: cherkas.oe
        And he did it right, otherwise state funds would not have succumbed to them.

        When you will be taken to the "sharashka" do not forget to say goodbye to VO.
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 22 May 2016 21: 11
          0
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          When you will be taken to the "sharashka" do not forget to say goodbye to VO.

          That’s forever exaggerating. If you even hypothetically assume that
          1) Restore Soviet power (which is currently unlikely)
          2) The Soviet government will restore sharashka (which is completely unrealistic, in the current conditions they are not needed)
          So why did you decide that they won’t get the Internet there? We will carry it there do not worry. So dear cherkas.oe will be with us even in sharashka smile
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 23 May 2016 15: 02
            0
            Quote: Odyssey
            So why did you decide that they won’t get the Internet there?

            But what about military secrets?
        2. Fegelein
          Fegelein 23 May 2016 01: 31
          0
          It’s vryatli - they don’t take people from such places.
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 22 May 2016 21: 01
        +2
        Quote: cherkas.oe
        Then you can understand Stalin

        I expressed to Bushuyev, Okhapkin and Tregub the idea of ​​the possibility of combining our efforts with Chelomey. But they only laughed at me, saying that Chelomei and Mishin would never agree with each other. Tsybin took my idea more seriously: “If the“ native father ”were alive, he would have resolved these contradictions in about twenty minutes or instructed Lavrenty Pavlovich. Lavrenty Beria in such cases did not delve into the contradictions between the main designers. If Stalin instructed him to figure it out, he would have called both and said: “If two communists cannot agree with each other, then one of them is the enemy. I don’t have time to find out which of you is the enemy. I give you twenty minutes. Decide for yourself. " I assure you, ”Tsybin continued,“ that after this Chelomey and I would work as best friends. ”
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 23 May 2016 08: 19
          0
          Quote: Odyssey
          “If two communists cannot agree with each other, then one of them is the enemy. I don’t have time to find out which of you is the enemy. I give you twenty minutes. Decide for yourself. " I assure you, ”Tsybin continued,“ that after this Chelomey and I would work as best friends. ”

          Do you believe that under such circumstances they will be connected to the Internet and allowed to climb different forums?
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 23 May 2016 23: 14
            0
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Do you believe that under such circumstances they will be connected to the Internet and allowed to climb different forums?

            Why not ?
            An honest communist will not betray state secrets, but with a dishonest communist party does much more severe than ordinary citizens. The threat of execution with confiscation is very effective, I assure you.
            And then even now, when there are neither honest communists, nor the threat of execution, there are carriers of state secrets and they have the Internet. And there are special people who make sure that they do not blurt out anything superfluous. And if they blurt out, there is criminal liability.
  • Operator
    Operator 22 May 2016 20: 55
    0
    Friendship won as a result of competition between the liquid propellant rocket engine and solid propellant rocket engine: a rocket engine powered by gel monofuel - a thixotropic mixture of nitrogen tetroxide and aluminum powder 0,15 microns - a specific thrust moment of 400 seconds is guaranteed laughing
    http://bankpatentov.ru/node/489455
  • exo
    exo 22 May 2016 21: 17
    0
    Perhaps Mace should be discussed. Provided that we would have been told its REAL characteristics. And what gets on the pages of the press very often does not reflect reality.
  • voldemar_k
    voldemar_k 22 May 2016 21: 22
    +2
    The advantages of solid-propellant missiles for the fleet are undeniable. It remains to "cook" normal fuel. We have more stringent operating temperature requirements, so the recipe is not the most energy efficient, but reliable. If they are afraid of cracking it from time and stress, then this is a purely design task and there is nothing complicated in it. The solutions are known and just lie on the surface, you don't even need to dig. There was only a question of the element base of electronics. It's a sore spot, but the technology we own is enough for a weapon.
    So there is no reason to wind the snot on the fence. You just need to look around and put together a couple of normal chemists and designers, the rest may be abnormal. Well, a dozen pretty girls for inspiration, otherwise the ugly rocket will turn out.
  • Olezhek
    Olezhek 22 May 2016 21: 38
    0
    I read the comments and still did not understand - why solid fuel engines for the rich and developed? (unlike liquid) request

    please explain
    1. AK64
      AK64 23 May 2016 11: 06
      +1
      I read the comments and still did not understand - why solid fuel engines for the rich and developed? (unlike liquid)

      Because to develop simultaneously two (or more) parallel (and giving the same result) directions - it means doubling oneself.
      Because already in the 40s, at the eReS experiment, it was clear that for the development of solid propellant solid propellant rocket engines it would have to solve a number of fundamental problems, and would require the development of a number of industries. While Fau was flying. That is, LRE can be followed at a fairly low level of production.
      Because in general, the rocket solid propellant rocket turns out to be much more expensive - here is the manufacturing price, storage periods, and so on.
  • sery volk
    sery volk 23 May 2016 04: 54
    -3
    all this is the development of the times of the USSR, there’s nothing to boast about the Russian military-industrial complex, there’s none of it, and shit rockets, and bullshit designers, khan us gentlemen lovers of European values, like that hoopoes destroyed the HOMELAND, sit and bark, read the gulag archipelago, scum your country and you will be happy, and that damn do not like the truth, then go to xp ,,, en
  • Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 23 May 2016 06: 23
    0
    We have argued more than once on this platform on this most important issue! Thanks to the Author - I put everything "on the shelves" in great detail and competently. I have suggested earlier on the basis of the Sarmat ICBM to consider the possibility of producing a naval version of the BR? Early, early our command destroys "Sharks" - it's a CRIME! And someone will ever answer for this sabotage ?! If it wasn't too late?
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 23 May 2016 11: 19
    0
    In what I agree with the author, so in the obvious "clamp" of the developers of naval ICBMs - Makeevtsy. That in Soviet times, that in the undercover struggle of the 90s. When naval ICBMs gave MIT to Solomatin, the echoes of these events will affect the combat effectiveness of the Russian Navy for decades to come.
  • Dr. Sorge
    Dr. Sorge 23 May 2016 20: 12
    +2
    Somehow chaotic-pessimistic written.
    About the fact that the media is often engaged in pseudo-dour-patriotic articles a fact. the reality is often different.
    The main thing is that information on new types of weapons should be supplied without a particle. WERE, WILL, WILL - A test is carried out, put into operation, etc. :) Victory is ours!
  • Old26
    Old26 23 May 2016 23: 30
    +1
    Quote: xomaNN
    In what I agree with the author, so in the obvious "clamp" of the developers of naval ICBMs - Makeevtsy. That in Soviet times, that in the undercover struggle of the 90s. When ICBMs were given to MIT - Solomatin

    Author RAVE bears about the "clamping" of the Makeyevites, and you agree with him. A good "clamp". Makeevtsy were practically monopolists in Soviet times. Damn, the author carries a blizzard, nonsense. Most likely he doesn’t even know that out of 10 types of marine ballistic missiles (serial) SEVEN were created by Makeevites. He doesn’t need it - he is a writer, not a reader.
    Now, if anyone was clamped in this regard, it was Tyurina. He went into a series just one a rocket, and even that language doesn’t dare to call 2 dozen rockets a series.
    Well, the fact that MACE got to MIT - maybe someday we’ll find out about the ins and outs of this process.
    And further. Do not distort the name of the person (even if you do not like him). Surname of the general designer - SolomonAnd not Solomatin or Solomonenko
    1. Topdrugs
      Topdrugs 24 May 2016 10: 30
      +1
      What to go far
      The first and only salvo in full ammunition - the 16 liquid-fuel missiles RSM-54 - was carried out 15 years ago by the strategic missile submarine cruiser Novomoskovsk.
      And the article is dated May 22, 2016.
    2. jonht
      jonht 18 October 2016 03: 22
      0
      Just as MIT was a monopoly on land solid rockets
  • Old26
    Old26 24 May 2016 20: 07
    +1
    Quote: Topdrugs
    What to go far
    The first and only salvo in full ammunition - the 16 liquid-fuel missiles RSM-54 - was carried out 15 years ago by the strategic missile submarine cruiser Novomoskovsk.
    And the article is dated May 22, 2016.

    Not certainly in that way. First, "Novomoskovsk" fired not 1, but 15 years ago, in 25.
    Secondly. Although 2 "products" were shot, but really war rockets there was only TWO. The rest are simulators with a fuel reserve of 25 seconds of flight, EMNIP and with sand as a load.
    But in 1997, twice (see the table above, laid out by a comrade opus) shot from 941 project boats, firing (for destruction) 20 missiles each
  • NordUral
    NordUral 24 May 2016 23: 04
    0
    Everything is too complicated. But I want one thing - so that any potential adversary or the amount of opponents (I will not point with a finger) knew - retaliation is inevitable. And let our smart heads and skillful hands do everything for this.
  • The comment was deleted.