Military Review

Salt rocket race

60
September 6 1955 of the White Sea from the Soviet diesel submarine B-67 (project 611В) the world's first test launch of a ballistic missile Р-11ФМ, conducted under the guidance of Sergei Pavlovich Korolev, took place. The submarine was commanded by the captain of the 1 rank F. I. Kozlov. Thus, 60 years ago was born a new species weapons - ballistic missile submarines.


For the sake of justice, it should be noted that the forefather of this weapon is Werner von Braun, who in the fall of 1944 proposed to place their V-2 missiles in floating containers towed by a submarine, which should have served as a launcher. But by the will of fate and the heroism of our soldiers, this project had to be carried out by Soviet and American rocket engineers in the fierce competition of the Cold War.

Underwater Cosmodrome

Initially, success favored the Americans. In the summer of 1956, the fleet initiated and generously sponsored the NOBSKA research project. The goal was to create promising models of missile and torpedo weapons for surface and submarine ships fleet. One of the programs involved the creation of a missile submarine based on existing diesel and nuclear. Four 80-ton liquid fuel (liquid oxygen + kerosene) Jupiter S BRDS under the project were placed in transport and launch containers in a horizontal position outside the solid hull of the boat. Before the start of the rocket had to be translated into a vertical position and refuel. Both U.S. nuclear weapons developers participated in the project on a competitive basis - LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory) and freshly baked, non-practical LLNL (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), led by Edward Teller. The storage of liquid oxygen in separate tanks on the submarine and the need to transfer it from the onboard supply to the rocket tanks immediately before launch were initially considered a dead end, and the project was rejected at the sketch stage. In the fall of 1956, at a meeting in the Ministry of Defense with the presence of all the designers, Frank E. Boswell, the head of the marine ammunition testing station, raised the question of the possibility of developing solid-fuel ballistic missiles five to ten times lighter than Jupiter S, with a flight range from 1000 to 1500 miles Immediately, he asked the developers of nuclear weapons: “Can you create a compact device weighing 1000 pounds and 1 megaton in five years?” Representatives of Los Alamos immediately refused. Edward Teller writes in his memoirs: "I got up and said: we in Livermore can do it in five years, and it will give 1 megaton." When I returned to Livermore and told my guys about the work that they had to do, their hair stood on end. ”

The Lockheed company (now Lockheed Martin) and Aerojet undertook the work on the rocket. The program was named Polaris, and already on September 24 of 1958, the first (unsuccessful) test launch of the Polaris A-1X rocket from the ground-based PU took place. The following four were also emergency. And only 20 April 1959, the next start was successful. At this time, the fleet reworked one of its projects of the Scorpion Platform SSN-589 in the world's first George Washington SSBN (SSBN-598) with a surface displacement of 6019 tons, underwater - 6880 tons. To do this, a 40-meter section, in which 16 vertical launch shafts were placed, was embedded in the central part of the boat behind the fence of sliding devices (wheelhouse). The circular deviation of the rocket when shooting at a maximum range of 2200 kilometers was 1800 meters. The rocket was equipped with the Mk-1 monobloc head part detached in flight, equipped with a W-47 thermonuclear charger. In the end, Teller and his team managed to create a revolutionary fusion device for their time: the W47 was very compact (460 mm in diameter and 1200 mm in length) and weighed 330 kilograms (in the Y1 model) or 332 kilograms (Y2). Y1 had 600 kilotons of energy, Y2 was twice as powerful. These very high, even by modern criteria, indicators were achieved by a three-stage construction (division-synthesis-division). But W47 had serious reliability issues. In 1966, the 75 percent of the stockpiles of 300 warheads of the most powerful Y2 units were considered faulty and could not be used.

Hello from Miass

On our side of the iron curtain Soviet designers went the other way. In 1955, at the suggestion of S. P. Korolev, Viktor Petrovich Makeev was appointed chief designer of SKB-385. From 1977 he is the head of the enterprise and the general designer of the machine-building design bureau (now the SRC named after academician V.P. Makeev, Miass). Under his leadership, the machine-building design bureau became the leading scientific and design organization in the country that solved the problems of developing, manufacturing and testing sea-launched missile systems. For three decades, three generations of SLBMs have been created here: the P-21 is the first missile with an underwater launch, the P-27 is the first small-sized rocket with factory fueling, the P-29 is the first marine intercontinental, the P-29Р is the first marine intercontinental with a divided head .



SLBMs were built on the basis of the LRE on high-boiling fuel, which allows achieving a greater coefficient of energy-mass perfection in comparison with solid-fuel engines.

In June, the 1971 of the year was decided by the military-industrial complex under the USSR Council of Ministers on the development of solid-propellant SLBMs with intercontinental range. Contrary to the prevailing and well-established ideas in historiography, the assertion that the Typhoon system in the USSR was created as a response to the American Trident is incorrect. The actual chronology of events suggests otherwise. According to the decision of the military industrial complex, the D-19 "Typhoon" complex was created by the machine-building design bureau. The project was supervised directly by the general designer of the design bureau of machine-building V.P. Makeev. The chief designer of the D-19 complex and the P-39 rocket is A. P. Grebnev (USSR Lenin Prize winner), the leading designer is V. D. Kalabukhov (USSR State Prize laureate). It was supposed to create a rocket with three variants of the head parts: single-block, with MOLDVEH with 3 – 5 medium power blocks and with MERVHL with 8 – 10 low power blocks. The development of the conceptual design of the complex was completed in July of 1972. Considered several variants of missiles with different dimensions and with differences in the layout.

The resolution of the USSR Council of Ministers on 16 of September 1973 of the year was assigned to the development of OCR Variant - the D-19 complex with the 3М65 / Р-39 "Osetre" rocket. At the same time, the development of solid-fuel 3М65 rockets for SSBNs of the 941 project was launched. Earlier, on February 22, 1973 issued a resolution on the development in Yuzhnoye Design Bureau of a technical proposal for the RT-23 ICBM complex with the 15Ж44 rocket with the unification of the 15Ж44 and 3М65 first-stage engines. In December 1974, the development of the draft design of the 75 tons rocket was completed. In June, the 1975-nd was adopted to supplement the draft design, leaving only one type of warhead - 10 MWR IN with 100 kiloton capacity. The length of the starting glass increased from 15 to 16,5 meter, the launch weight of the rocket increased to 90 tons. By the August 1975 of the year, the USSR Council of Ministers decree fixed the final layout of the missile and combat equipment: a low-power 10 RGCH IN with a range of 10 thousands of kilometers. In December, 1976 and February 1981, additional regulations were issued, specifying fuel type changes from 1.1 class to 1.3 class on the second and third stages, which resulted in a decrease in the range of the missile to 8300 kilometers. Ballistic missiles use solid fuels of two classes - 1.1 and 1.3. The energy content of the 1.1 type fuel is higher than the 1.3. The first also has the best technological properties, high mechanical strength, resistance to cracking and the formation of grains. Thus, less susceptible to accidental ignition. At the same time, it is more prone to detonation and is close in sensitivity to conventional explosives. Since the safety requirements in the technical specifications for the ICBMs are much tougher than for the SLBMs, in the first they apply 1.3 class fuel, and in the second - 1.1 class. The reproaches of the Western and some of our experts in the technological backwardness of the USSR in the field of the technology of solid propellant solid propellants are absolutely not fair. The Soviet P-39 SLBM is one and a half times heavier than the D-5 precisely because it was manufactured using ICBM technology with excessive security requirements, completely unnecessary in this case.

Slippery weight

The third generation of nuclear missiles in submarines required the creation of special thermonuclear charges with improved weight and size characteristics. The most difficult was the creation of a small-sized warhead. For the designers of the All-Russia Research Institute of Instrument Engineering, this problem began with the announcement by the Deputy Minister of Medium Machine-Building on the Nuclear Weapons Complex A. D. Zakharenkov of 1974 in April about the characteristics of the Trident’s warhead - Mk-4RV / W-76. The American warhead was a sharp cone with a 1,3 meter height and a base diameter of 40 centimeters. The warhead's weight is about 91 kilograms. The location of the special-purpose weapons of the warhead was unusual: it was also located in front of the charge (in the toe of the unit - a radio sensor, protection and cocking stages, inertial), and behind the charge. It was necessary to create something similar in the USSR. Soon, the machine-building design bureau released a preliminary report confirming information about the American warhead. It indicated that a material based on carbon filaments was used for its hull, and an approximate estimate of the weight distribution between the hull, nuclear charge, and special automatics was given. In the American warhead, according to the authors of the report, the shell accounted for 0,25 – 0,3 warhead weight. For special automatics - no more than 0,09, everything else was a nuclear charge. Sometimes false information or deliberate misinformation on the part of the opponent stimulates the engineers of competing parties to create more advanced or even ingenious designs. This was exactly the case for almost 20 years - the overstated specifications served as role models for Soviet developers. In reality, it turned out that the American warhead weighs almost twice as much.

Salt rocket race


In the VNII instrument making with 1969 year, work was carried out on the creation of compact thermonuclear charges, but without reference to a specific ammunition. By May, 1974-th were tested several charges of two types. The results were disappointing: the warhead turned out to be 40 percent heavier than the foreign counterpart. It was necessary to select materials for the hull and to work out new devices for special automation. All-Russian Research Institute of Instrument Engineering attracted to the work of the Research Institute of Communications Minsredmash. An extremely light special automation was created in the Commonwealth, not exceeding 10 per cent of the warhead's weight. By 1975, the energy release was almost doubled. In the new missile systems it was supposed to install separable warheads with the number of warheads from seven to ten. In 1975, the All-Russia Research Institute of Experimental Physics KB-11 (Sarov) was involved in this work.

According to the results of work carried out in 70 – 90-s, including on ammunition of small and middle class power, an unprecedented qualitative growth of the main characteristics determining combat effectiveness was achieved. At times, the specific energy of nuclear weapons is increased. Products 2000-x - 100-kilogram 3-32 of small class and 200-kilogram 3-X37 middle-class power for missiles R-29Р, P-29RMU and P-30 developed to meet modern requirements for enhanced security at all stages of the life cycle, reliability, security. For the first time, an inertial adaptive blasting system is used in the automation system. In combination with the sensors and devices used, it provides increased safety and security in abnormal conditions during operation and unauthorized actions. A number of tasks are also being solved to increase the level of counteraction to the missile defense system. Modern Russian warheads are far superior to American designs in power density, security and other parameters.

Salt rocket race

The key positions that determine the quality of strategic missile weapons and recorded in the protocol to the SALT-2 Treaty are, naturally, the starting and throw weight.

Item 7 of the 2 article of the treaty: “The starting weight of an ICBM or SLBM is the own weight of a fully loaded missile at the time of launch. The weighted weight of an ICBM or SLBM is the total weight of: a) its warheads or warheads; (b) Any standalone unit for the breeding or other appropriate devices, for targeting a single warhead either for separating or for breeding and targeting two or more warheads; c) its means of overcoming defenses, including the design for their separation. The term “other relevant devices”, as used in determining the throwing weight of an ICBM or SLBM in the second agreed statement to the 7 clause of the 2 article of the contract, means any device for breeding and pointing two or more warheads or for targeting one warhead that can report additional warheads speed no more than 1000 meters per second. " This is the only documented and legally documented and fairly accurate definition of the throwing weight of a strategic BR. It is not entirely correct to compare it with the payload of the PH used in civilian industries for the construction of artificial satellites. There is a “dead weight”, and the missile weight of a combat missile includes its own propulsion system (DU), which can partially fulfill the function of the last stage. For ICBMs and SLBMs, an additional delta in 1000 speed meters per second gives a significant increase in range. For example, an increase in the speed of the warhead from 6550 to 7480 meters per second at the end of the active section leads to an increase in the launch range from 7000 to 12 000 kilometers. Theoretically, the dilution zone of warheads of any ICBM or SLBM equipped with a MIRV-IN (MIRV) can represent a trapezoidal area (inverted trapezium) 5000 kilometers in height and bases: from the starting point to 1000, to the upper 2000. But in fact, it is an order of magnitude smaller for most missiles and is strongly limited by the engine of the dilution unit and the fuel supply.

Only 31 July 1991, the real numbers of starting masses and payloads (throw weight) of the American and Soviet ICBMs and SLBMs were officially announced. The preparation of START-1 has come to an end. And only during the work on the treaty, the Americans were able to assess how accurate the data on Soviet missiles provided by the intelligence and analytical services in the 70 – 80s were. For the most part, this information turned out to be erroneous or in some cases inaccurate.

It turned out that the situation with the American figures in the environment of "absolute freedom of speech" is not better, as one might suppose, but much worse. Data in numerous Western military and other media in reality turned out to be far from the truth. The Soviet side, the experts who carried out the calculations, when preparing documents both under the SALT-2 Treaty and on START-1, relied precisely on the published materials on American missiles. Invalid parameters, which appeared as early as 70, migrated from independent sources to the pages of official tabloids of the US Department of Defense and archive files of manufacturers. The figures provided by the American side during the mutual data exchanges immediately after the conclusion of the contract and in the 2009 year do not give the real weight of American missiles, but only the total weight of their warheads. This applies to almost all ICBMs and SLBMs. The exception is the ICBM MX. Her weight drop in official documents is specified exactly, down to the kilogram - 3950. It is for this reason that, using the example of an ICBM MX, we will take a closer look at its design - what does the rocket consist of and what elements of the MS are included in the drop weight.

Rocket inside


The rocket has four stages. The first three solid fuel, the fourth is equipped with rocket engine. The maximum speed of the rocket at the end of the active section at the moment of shutdown (cutoff of thrust) of the engine of the 3-th stage is 7205 meters per second. Theoretically, at this moment, the first warhead can be separated (range - 9600 km), the 4 stage is launched. At the end of its operation, the warhead has a speed of 7550 meters per second, the last warhead is separated. Range - 12 800 kilometers. The additional speed reported by the 4 st stage is no more than 350 meters per second. According to the terms of the OCB-2 Agreement, the rocket is formally considered a three-stage one. Remote control RS-34 seems to be not a stage, but an element of the design of the warhead.

The throw-in weight includes the Mk-21 warhead rearing unit, its platform, the RS-34 LRE, and the fuel supply — in total 1300 kilograms. Plus 10 warheads Mk-21RV / W-87 265 kilograms. Instead of a part of the warheads, complexes of means for overcoming missile defense can be loaded. The drop weight does not include passive elements: the head fairing (about 350 kg), the transitional compartment between the MS and the last stage, as well as some parts of the control system that are not involved in the operation of the breeding unit. Total it turns out 3950 kilograms. The total weight of all ten warheads is 67 percent of the drop weight. In the Soviet SS-18 MBR (P-36М2) and SS-19 (УР-100 Н), this indicator is respectively 51,5 and 74,7 percent. There were no questions on the ICBM MX then, there is no now - no doubt, the rocket belongs to the light class.

In all official documents published over the past 20 years, the 1500 kilograms (in some sources 1350) for Trident-1 and 2800 kilograms for Trident-2 are indicated as the weighted weight of American SLBMs. This is only the total weight of the warheads - eight Mk-4RV / W-76 165 kilograms, or the same Mk-5RV / W-88 330 kilograms each.

The Americans deliberately took advantage of the situation, maintaining up to now distorted or even false ideas of the Russian side about the capabilities of their strategic forces.

"Tridents" - offenders


14 September 1971, the US Secretary of Defense approved the decision of the Navy Coordination Council to begin R & D on the ULMS program (ballistic missile of extended-range submarines). The development of two projects was envisaged: “Trident-1” and “Trident-2”. Formally, Lockheed received an order for the Trident-2 D-5 from the fleet in 1983, but in fact the work was started simultaneously with the Trident-1 C-4 (UGM-96A) in December 1971. The Trident 1 and Trident 2 SLBMs belonged to different classes of missiles, respectively C (caliber 75 inches) and D (85 inches), and intended to arm two types of SSBNs. The first is for the existing Lafayette submarines, the second is for the promising Ohio at the time. Contrary to popular belief, both missiles belong to the same SLBM generation. The Trident-2 is made using the same technologies as the Trident-1. However, due to the increased size (diameter - by 15%, length - by 30%), the starting weight doubled. As a result, we managed to increase the launch range from 4000 to 6000 nautical miles, and the throwing weight - from 5000 to 10 000 pounds. The Trident-2 rocket is a three-stage, solid propellant. The head part with the diameter two midsize smaller than the first two stages (2057 mm instead of 2108) includes the Hercules X-853 engine occupying the central part of the compartment and made in the form of a cylindrical monoblock (3480х860 mm), and a warhead platform located around it. The breeding unit does not have its own remote control, its function is performed by the third-stage engine. Due to these rocket design features, the length of the Trident 2 warhead can reach 6400 kilometers. The third stage equipped with fuel and the platform of the breeding unit without warheads weighs 2200 kilograms. For the Trident-2 rocket, there are four options for booting the warhead.

The first one is “heavy warhead”: 8 Mk-5RV / W-88, drop weight - 4920 kilograms, maximum range - 7880 kilometers.

The second is “lightweight warp”: 8 Mk-4RV / W-76, drop weight - 3520 kilograms, maximum range - 11 100 kilometers.

Modern boot options according to the limitations of START-1 / 3:

the first is 4 Mk-5RV / W-88, weight is 3560 kilograms;
the second is 4 Mk-4RV / W-76, weight is 2860 kilograms.


Today we can say with confidence that the rocket was created between the SALT-2 (1979) and START-1 (1991) Treaties, in violation of the first: “Each party undertakes not to create, not to test and not deploy SLBMs that have more weight to be dropped than the largest, according to the drop weight, lightweight ICBMs ”(Art. 9, paragraph“ e ”). The largest of the lighter ICBMs was SS-19 (UR-100НТТХ), whose throwing weight was 4350 kilograms. A solid reserve for this parameter of the Trident-2 missiles provides Americans with ample opportunities for “return potential” if there is a sufficiently large stock of warheads.

"Ohio" - on the needles

The US Navy today has in its composition 14 SSBN type "Ohio". Some of them are based in the Pacific on the Bangor Navy (17-I squadron) - eight SSBNs. The other is in the Atlantic at the Kings Bay naval base (20-I squadron), six SSBNs.

The main provisions of the development policy of the US nuclear strategic forces for the near future are fixed in the Nuclear Posture Review Report 2010 announced by the Pentagon. In accordance with these plans, it is planned for the second half of 2020-x to begin a gradual reduction in the number of deployed missile carriers from 14 to 12.

It will be carried out “in a natural way”, after the expiration of the service life. The withdrawal of the first Ohri-class SSBNs from the Navy is scheduled for 2027 year. To replace the boats of this type should come bomber new generation, passing at the moment under the abbreviation SSBN (X). A total of 12 new construction boats are planned.

R & D is in full swing, it is expected to begin replacing existing missile carriers at the end of the 2020s. The new submarine will be a standard displacement on the 2000 tons of heavier "Ohio" and will be equipped with 16 PU SLBM instead of 24. The estimated cost of the entire program is 98 – 103 billion dollars (of which research and development will cost 10 – 15 billion). On average, one submarine will cost 8,2 – 8,6 a billion dollars. The commissioning of the first SSBN (X) is scheduled for 2031 year. With each subsequent it is planned to withdraw from the Navy one SSBN type "Ohio". The launch of the latest boat of the new type is scheduled for 2040 year. During the first decade of service life, these SSBNs will be armed with a Trident-2 SLBM with an extended D5LE life cycle.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/31123
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 3 July 2016 06: 59
    +5
    As always, it was with great pleasure that I read the article containing a serious analysis, for which many thanks to the author.
    Here is a good movie on the topic

    [media = https: //my.mail.ru/mail/ams67/video/6258/6364.html]
  2. Magic archer
    Magic archer 3 July 2016 07: 20
    +5
    I was struck by the cost of R&D and the cost of an approximate one boat! If this is true, then it is higher than that of a nuclear aircraft carrier ... Thanks to the author. I learned a lot of interesting things for myself
  3. sevtrash
    sevtrash 3 July 2016 10: 24
    0
    The salt of the rocket race is now probably in a different way. The Americans have developed a missile defense system that can intercept ground-based ICBMs. Not yet deployed, but already deployed. Radars in Norway, then in the Czech Republic and Korea, anti-missiles in Poland or elsewhere. This threat to balance seems to be the main one.
    1. Beefeater
      Beefeater 3 July 2016 11: 08
      +2
      Quote: sevtrash
      The salt of the rocket race is now probably in a different way. The Americans have developed a missile defense system that can intercept ground-based ICBMs. Not yet deployed, but already deployed. Radars in Norway, then in the Czech Republic and Korea, anti-missiles in Poland or elsewhere. This threat to balance seems to be the main one.

      Balance is achieved simply. Our missiles should hit a dozen of the largest cities in the United States. This is enough to never happen.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 3 July 2016 12: 32
        -4
        Warheads will hit military facilities, there will not be enough civilian warheads, we have only 1730 of them, and there are more than 3000 US and NATO military bases and facilities.
        1. ism_ek
          ism_ek 3 July 2016 19: 16
          -4
          Quote: Vadim237
          Warheads will hit military facilities, there will not be enough civilian warheads, we have only 1730 of them, and there are more than 3000 US and NATO military bases and facilities.

          The accuracy of "naval" ICBMs is very low. Submarines are shooting at cities. It is a weapon of retaliation.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 3 July 2016 22: 24
            0
            "The accuracy of naval ICBMs is very low." - What, what - ICBM Trident 2D5 KO warheads from 90 to 120 meters, Rocket R 29 KO warheads 250 meters ICBM Bulava KO 350 meters ICBM M51 KO 250 meters - all of this was created primarily to destroy protected, in-depth military facilities.
            1. ism_ek
              ism_ek 4 July 2016 08: 42
              0
              Quote: Vadim237
              ICBM Trident 2D5 KO warheads from 90 to 120 meters

              This is when using GPS. For a secure underground command post, such accuracy is not enough.
              The hitting accuracy of the same "Poplar" is 10 meters. Rarely, but there are times when the warhead hits directly "into the peg"
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 4 July 2016 10: 48
                0
                Yes, even if the W88 warhead misses 300 meters - this underground, buried bunker will simply be crushed by the shock wave from the explosion and the displacement of soil masses - 475 kilotons no matter how, KO at Poplar - 350 meters.
                1. Simple
                  Simple 4 July 2016 15: 42
                  0
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  Yes, even if the W88 warhead misses the 300 meters - this underground, buried bunker will simply crush

                  not a fact
            2. Simple
              Simple 4 July 2016 15: 40
              0
              Quote: Vadim237
              Why, what - ICBM Trident 2D5 KO warheads from 90 to 120 meters,


              W87 has higher accuracy (KVO 90 meters) for W88 (KVO 120 meters). Therefore, to ensure a high probability of hitting a protected target, the charge of W88 is increased from 300 to 475 ct.

              You're just trying to compare the 88 to the "junk on cotton" W78 from the LGM-30G Minuteman III, an Mk12A type BB.

              land will always be more accurate. This is due to positioning, excitement and especially: SLBMs surface "as God sent" the range of pitch angles is impressive


              Quote: ism_ek
              hitting accuracy of the same "Poplar" - 10 meters

              Oh belay
              for RT-2ПМ, the circular probable deviation (CVO) of the BB was about 900 m
              RS-12M2 "Topol-M" up to 350i

              Minority-3 QUO is estimated at 150 - 200 m.
    2. Locksmith
      Locksmith 3 July 2016 21: 24
      +1
      Quote: sevtrash
      The Americans have developed a missile defense system that can intercept land-based ICBMs

      Probably, the point is that the Americans have sprinkled brains on everyone with their missile defense system, essentially behind the scenes of installing medium-range missiles disguised as a missile defense. am
    3. Operator
      Operator 4 July 2016 00: 50
      0
      Any stationary radars of NATO, Japan and South Korea located in the radius of flight of Iskander-M are nothing more than cardboard dope: before launching Russian ICBMs, above each of these radars at an altitude of 30-40 km (outside the range of missile defense) An 100 CT warhead explodes, shielding an overview of the ICBM flight paths.

      The only real missile defense system is a system completely located on its national territory outside the operational range of tactical or medium-range missiles of the enemy.

      Naturally, this statement does not apply to the radars of the Missile Attack Warning System.
      1. Peter Tverdokhlebov
        Peter Tverdokhlebov April 19 2020 12: 33
        0
        But is Iskander constantly on alert with the YaBCH?
    4. NEXUS
      NEXUS 23 October 2016 16: 41
      +3
      sevtrash
      The salt of the rocket race is now probably in a different way. The Americans have developed a missile defense system that can intercept ground-based ICBMs.

      The essence of the IJIS system with Standard 3 anti-ballistic missiles is that they can intercept our ICBMs only in the acceleration section. Therefore, the Russian Federation is re-equipping mobile complexes and instead of Topol and Topol-M puts Yars and in the future Yars-M, since Yars has less acceleration section. As for our mine missiles, in order to intercept them, the US fleet should be as close to our shores, for the reason that was announced above. But the US Navy, in this situation, will expose its shores, which is similar to death for the USA. And lastly, the concentration of the US Navy in such quantities will not go unnoticed by the Russian Federation ... so for now, the United States has not been able to effectively intercept our ICBMs. And on the approach of the ICBM Rubezh and the ICBMs of Sarmat, which IDAS will not be an obstacle.
      And also do not forget about the imminent appearance of BZHRK Barguzin.
  4. kotuk_ha_oxote
    kotuk_ha_oxote 3 July 2016 11: 16
    -6
    Quote: Beefeater
    Quote: sevtrash
    The salt of the rocket race is now probably in a different way. The Americans have developed a missile defense system that can intercept ground-based ICBMs. Not yet deployed, but already deployed. Radars in Norway, then in the Czech Republic and Korea, anti-missiles in Poland or elsewhere. This threat to balance seems to be the main one.

    Balance is achieved simply. Our missiles should hit a dozen of the largest cities in the United States. This is enough to never happen.

    The killing of civilians by weapons of mass destruction ...
    1. Beefeater
      Beefeater 3 July 2016 11: 35
      +8
      Quote: kotuk_ha_oxote
      Quote: Beefeater

      Balance is achieved simply. Our missiles should hit a dozen of the largest cities in the United States. This is enough to never happen.

      The killing of civilians by weapons of mass destruction ...

      Balance rests on fear.
      And not on the contracts and promises given at parties in Courchevel.
      Only the unwillingness of the American establishment to wistfully exist in a nuclear garbage dump and keeps these guys from war
      1. Sergey-8848
        Sergey-8848 16 November 2016 16: 17
        0
        Certain American senators (apparently, due to a very solid Cambridge-Eton education) in all seriousness during the debate on the Capitol Hill ask: "If we have nuclear weapons, why don't we use it?" But the American political beau monde (and in our opinion, bohemians) has many more similar politicians, for example, Alaskan governor Sarah Palin (quite a real candidate).
        1. atalef
          atalef 16 November 2016 16: 48
          0
          Quote: Sergey-8848
          Separate American senators (see, by virtue of a very substantial Cambridge-Eton education)

          belay
  5. Old26
    Old26 3 July 2016 11: 47
    +6
    Undoubted article A PLUS... Good analysis. Interesting numbers. But with the table, alas - there are many inaccuracies. Especially for more modern products. Both ours and American and French. There are still some "roughness", but they are not significant

    Quote: sevtrash
    The salt of the rocket race is now probably in a different way. The Americans have developed a missile defense system that can intercept ground-based ICBMs. Not yet deployed, but already deployed. Radars in Norway, then in the Czech Republic and Korea, anti-missiles in Poland or elsewhere. This threat to balance seems to be the main one.

    You, dear, mixed everything in one bottle.
    1. A radar exists in Norway, but is not a missile defense radar. He has not a phased, but a parabolic antenna.
    2. There is no radar in the Czech Republic and is not expected. This was Bush’s idea back in the early 2000s.
    3. Radar in Korea? Isn't it Taiwan? Again, not a missile defense radar, but an early warning system. Both radars are - let's say, "unpleasant" for Russia, but not critical. The second radar is more likely to control Chinese missile launches.
    4. You forgot another radar that you plan to deploy. In the Persian Gulf.
    5. There is no anti-missile system in Poland and will not be there in the next couple of years. There is only in Romania. But the missiles that are in Romania and will be in Poland are not capable of intercepting the warheads of our ICBMs. And those that are designed to intercept - in-1 no earlier than 2021, in-2 in those launchers that are simply not fit. Yes, and this program is frozen indefinitely
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 3 July 2016 19: 34
      -1
      Quote: Old26
      You, dear, mixed everything in one bottle.
      1. A radar exists in Norway, but is not a missile defense radar. He has not a phased, but a parabolic antenna.
      2. There is no radar in the Czech Republic and is not expected. This was Bush’s idea back in the early 2000s.
      3. Radar in Korea? Isn't it Taiwan? Again, not a missile defense radar, but an early warning system. Both radars are - let's say, "unpleasant" for Russia, but not critical. The second radar is more likely to control Chinese missile launches.
      4. You forgot another radar that you plan to deploy. In the Persian Gulf.
      5. There is no anti-missile system in Poland and will not be there in the next couple of years. There is only in Romania. But the missiles that are in Romania and will be in Poland are not capable of intercepting the warheads of our ICBMs. And those that are designed to intercept - in-1 no earlier than 2021, in-2 in those launchers that are simply not fit. Yes, and this program is frozen indefinitely


      Dear, there is information on Wiki at least.
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D
      0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0
      %B0_%D0%A1%D0%A8%D0%90
      You would read. About 30 countries of the world interact with the United States on their missile defense. And of course, both the Czech Republic and Poland are in the same place. And there is a list of a dozen missile defense radars.
      Radar Warde is part of the ABM (see again Wiki), the nearest station from the Russian border - 60 km, determines the fast capture, the subsequent transfer of the radar to Thule, Failinglades for escort. New more accurate AMDR radars are supposed to be placed in the Czech Republic and Korea, maybe Japan. This placement allows you to block all launch zones of Russian ICBMs.
      Construction of missile defense elements is underway in Redzikovo, SM2018 block 3a should be deployed by 2, and block 2020b will be ready by 2.
      Dear, this is not a mixture, but the components of a missile defense system that are already under construction - are being deployed. Is there any doubt that it will work?
      The GBI and block 2b missiles will be able to shoot down the Vypolzovo and Tatishchevo ICBMs within 300 seconds from launch.
      We are witnessing the birth of a new element of strategic forces that is not formally related to them, but capable of leveling them in the near future. And SM3 is her prophet. The last joke. In part.
      1. oborzevatel
        oborzevatel 4 July 2016 11: 52
        0
        Quote: sevtrash
        Dear, there is information on Wiki at least.

        Well, you, dear ones, about Vicki - you have bent ... lol
        Very convincing argument.
    2. Simple
      Simple 4 July 2016 17: 29
      0
      Quote: Old26
      . A radar exists in Norway, but is not a missile defense radar. He has not a phased, but a parabolic antenna.

      what's the difference (parabola or PAR)?
      The HAVE STARE radar was developed in the early 90s. by Raytheon. The customer of the station was the US Air Force Electronic Systems Center, which is responsible for the development and production of monitoring and control systems. According to the US Department of Defense, HAVE STARE is "a centimeter-band surveillance and tracking radar (operating frequency of 10 GHz), with a mechanically rotating antenna of 27 m and high resolution."
      the fact that it is now called "Globus-2" does not change anything

      Today, HAVE STARE is the most advanced American surveillance radar. Its resolution reaches 10-15 cm, which ensures the acquisition of "images" of Russian warheads and decoys. Note that the resolution of American early warning radars reaches 5-10 m at best.

      Information about the HAVE STARE station, presented by ... BMDO (Ballistic Missile Defense Organization) USA

      the US Air Force's atmospheric intercept technology program noted: "The US Air Force has two radars that are of high value for use in national missile defense. This is the PAVE PAWS phased array radar located at the Air Force base in Beale, California, which has the ability to detect a target in a wide review sector, and HAVE STARE, located at Vandenberg Air Force Base (California) as a promising development for the role of a radar with a narrow field of view to track a target in a future national missile defense system ". The document also notes that in order to fully assess the suitability of these two radars in the national missile defense, the US Air Force plans to integrate and test these stations under conditions close to real ones. First, PAVE PAWS will find the incoming target, and to determine the specific characteristics of the target, it will transmit it to the HAVE STARE station.

      A second station of the same type is planned to be deployed in Erickson on the island of Shemiah (Aleutian Islands).
  6. kolobok63
    kolobok63 3 July 2016 11: 56
    0
    A sensible article, it's a pity that Voennoye Obozreniye is not read in the Kremlin. To develop, develop and once again develop the missile-carrying submarine fleet! Partners in this case will think 1000 times before turning the "key to start" am
    1. region58
      region58 3 July 2016 12: 54
      0
      Quote: kolobok63
      the only pity is that "Voennoye Obozreniye" is not read in the Kremlin

      It is a pity that few people are interested in such publications (judging by the number of reviews).
      I noticed that less and less are interested in technology. In my opinion it is regrettable ...
  7. gregor6549
    gregor6549 3 July 2016 11: 58
    -2
    The problem of naval missile weapons (with the exception of Chelomey’s cruise missiles and not only missile weapons) for many years was that these weapons were based on ground-based models, which caused ballistic missile carrier submarines to become storage facilities for extremely flammable and toxic liquids (missile fuel and oxidizing agent.In the United States, when the first missiles for submarines were created, the US marine department immediately refused to use liquid fuel missiles and all means and resources allocated for the creation of rocket technology for submarines directed to the development of compact solid-fuel missiles. Therefore, the USSR in this regard has been among the catch-up for a long time. And those solid-fuel missiles that managed to bring to mind turned out to be completely compact, which led to the creation of the largest submarines in world (for example, the submarine shark and its descendants).
  8. Old26
    Old26 3 July 2016 12: 18
    +4
    [quote = kolobok63] Explanatory article, it's a pity that Voennoye Obozreniye is not read in the Kremlin. To develop, develop and once again develop the missile-carrying submarine fleet! Partners in this case will think 1000 times before turning the "key to start" am[/ Quote]
    There has never been a bet on SLBMs in the USSR. The basis has always been Strategic Rocket Forces. to develop and develop the submarine missile fleet, as you propose, that is, rely on it, is to break the entire structure of the nuclear deterrence system. Is it necessary?

    [quote = gregor6549] The problem of naval missile weapons (with the exception of Chelomey’s cruise missiles and not only missile missiles, for many years consisted of the fact that these weapons were based on ground-based designs. [/ quotation]
    You're not right. The only complex created on the basis of a ground-based missile was the D-1 complex with the R-11FM missile. Everything else was created specifically for sea-based

    [quote = gregor6549] In the United States, when the first missiles for submarines were created, the US marine department immediately refused to use liquid-propellant rockets, and all the funds and resources allocated for the creation of rocket technology for submarines were used to develop compact solid-fuel missiles. [/ quote]
    Unfortunately it was. And that was the biggest minus of the system of government that was. When the decision was made not in the offices of admirals, but in the offices of politicians. Plus lobbying, which was much stronger than in the US

    [quote = gregor6549] Therefore, the USSR in this regard has long been among the catch-up. And those solid-propellant missiles which in the USSR were brought to mind turned out to be completely not compact, which led to the creation of the largest submarines in the world (for example, the Shark submarine and its descendants). [/ Quote]
    We are still not in the most advanced positions. And those that were able to bring to mind ...
    The R-31 SLBM was quite compact. the range was of course small, but if necessary, with further work on it, they could have brought it to the required performance characteristics. However, "competition". Makeev simply "ate" Tyurin. As a result, the Makeyev rocket was adopted, not Tyurin's, into service with the same "Akula"
    1. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 3 July 2016 14: 59
      +4
      The Americans' "compact" solid-propellant missiles are one and a half times heavier than the "flawed liquid" 3M-37. Americans still cannot make normal liquid products. The 3M-65 product still had a liquid 3 stage. In the late 80s, early 90s, the Americans did everything to ruin our production of liquid-propellant missiles, sent commissions here, slipped us equipment for the disposal of components, etc. They have already begun to expand this business, but they slowed down in time. From Moscow they tried to squeeze out the conclusion from the military representatives that the production was allegedly ruined and the enterprise should be closed. This is from the Ministry of Defense and URAV Navy! It is good that the head of acceptance did not agree, he sent deputies to the subcontractors, who brought the consent and the opportunity to immediately resume production.
      Over the entire period of operation, there was not a single incident with the D-9RM complex due to the rocket, and indeed there were no problems on the 667BDRM boats due to the rocket complex (I don’t think the 1st Begemot, there was a problem with non-standard products). For 30 years. It's just that a group of "comrades" began to carry a blanket with orders, why take money out of the capital?
      Please note, the Americans are returning to a complete set of 16 products. So what? And why will a carrier with 16 products become 2000 tons heavier?
      When the R-31 (3M-17) was launched for the first time in 1976, a 2K-4 rocket with a range of 75 times greater, weighing only 2 tons in weight, has been in service for 5 years. Money for a new ship and the development or development of the product must also be taken somewhere.
      K-140 stood in Gadzhievo on the 8th pier; over the past 10 years of its life, it has not gone to the autonomous region every year.
      And how in the existing weight and size characteristics could the P-31st range be raised?
  9. Vadim237
    Vadim237 3 July 2016 12: 37
    0
    The United States may not decommission its Ohio submarines, when commissioning new submarines, they will simply remake them under cruise missiles or even under launchers for new missile defense systems.
  10. Old26
    Old26 3 July 2016 12: 59
    +5
    Quote: Vadim237
    Warheads will hit military facilities, there will not be enough civilian warheads, we have only 1730 of them, and there are more than 3000 US and NATO military bases and facilities.

    Not necessary. Moreover, only strategic nuclear forces are unlikely to work on NATO. Tactical will also be involved.
    As for military facilities. About 5-7 years ago, I got a review on the net where the author examines on several tens of pages an approximate order of blocks necessary for the country to cease to be controlled by a state entity. And I must say that there are not only military facilities.
    For example, cite the United States, France, Germany

    USA
    = 9 million cities with 6-12 charges per each
    = 28 large cities and industrial centers with 3-6 charges per each
    = 6 naval bases of 1 charge per
    = 15 air bases with 1 charge per
    = 25 power plants with 1 charge per each
    = 22 large transport hubs with 1-2 charges per each
    = 60 military facilities at 1 charge per

    FRANCE
    = 3 million cities with 3 charges per each
    = 7 major cities and industrial centers with 1 charge per each
    = 4 naval bases of 1 charge per
    = 12 air bases with 1 charge per
    = 10 military objects, 1 charge per each

    GERMANY
    = 12 million cities with 3 charges per each
    = 16 major cities and industrial centers with 1 charge per each
    = 7 naval bases of 1 charge per
    = 17 air bases with 1 charge per
    = 10 military objects, 1 charge per each

    And agree. Positions in bold are difficult to call military targets. In addition, to shoot exclusively at military bases, in the mines of which there are no longer any missiles, is senseless and stupid to hit
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 July 2016 16: 30
      0
      Then why is the accuracy of warheads - KO is brought up to 90 - 120 meters - if they will be beaten in cities? "It is senseless and stupid enough to hit in the mines where there are no more missiles" - And we will never know if there are missiles left there or they are not there.
      1. Simple
        Simple 4 July 2016 19: 21
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        Then why the accuracy of warheads - KOs are brought to 90 - 120 meters - if they will beat through the cities?

        the effectiveness of a nuclear explosion falls according to the law of inverse squares

        Air shock wave in a medium nuclear explosion
        power passes approximately 1000 m for 1,4 s, 2000 m - for 4 s. 3000 m — for 7s, 5000 m — for 12 s.
        the more QUo, the more nuclear warheads are required (by mass, by volume), all this is the cast weight for ICBMs: number of warheads, launch weight
    2. Operator
      Operator 4 July 2016 00: 39
      0
      For a city with a million-plus population, you can pick up one charge from 15 Mt and higher am
      1. Peter Tverdokhlebov
        Peter Tverdokhlebov April 19 2020 12: 47
        0
        Where will you find this charge?
        How will he overcome the missile defense system?
        1. Operator
          Operator April 19 2020 17: 15
          -2
          Have you heard about the Sarmat ICBM with a monoblock nuclear charge (for targets in the interior of the continent) or about the Poseidon RV with special warheads (for targets in the coastal zone)?

          There is a nuclear missile defense system against missile defense, a nuclear path, "first-second", etc.
    3. Peter Tverdokhlebov
      Peter Tverdokhlebov April 19 2020 12: 48
      0
      What is a large transport hub?
      1. Operator
        Operator April 19 2020 17: 16
        0
        A port, for example, is an intermodal transport hub.
  11. Old26
    Old26 3 July 2016 13: 05
    +5
    Quote: Vadim237
    The United States may not decommission its Ohio submarines, when commissioning new submarines, they will simply remake them under cruise missiles or even under launchers for new missile defense systems.

    Under cruise missiles, there is still logic. Under missile defense - no logic. missile defense missiles were never underwater launch missiles. And to use the boat for firing in the surface is silly. And where are you, tell me, put a radar?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 July 2016 16: 19
      -2
      Yes, they’ll even just put it at the pier, it will be not far away as a launch platform for missile defense.
  12. Poplar505
    Poplar505 3 July 2016 16: 35
    +1
    Ours will never give a command to launch those PUs whose PZ determines the defeat of large cities. Why?
    Too many "elite" offspring of our powers that be are wasting their lives and our money there. In the most extreme case, such an order will not be given at all.
    For those who object to me reasonably, I ask you to count these very foreign ones. And whose they will be.
    Negative ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 4 July 2016 10: 53
      +1
      "Too many 'elite' offspring of our powers that be are wasting their lives and our money there." - These are their problems, in the event of an attack on us - missile launches from our side will be one hundred percent - regardless of who and where lives.
  13. Old26
    Old26 3 July 2016 18: 08
    0
    Quote: Andrew NM
    The Americans' "compact" solid-propellant missiles are one and a half times heavier than the "flawed liquid" 3M-37.

    Andrew! Do not juggle. Nobody called "liquid" SLBMs "Defective" and even more so 3M37
    But you must admit that in a number of cases, solid-propellant American SLBMs had smaller dimensions and launch masses with the same firing range. Not always, but nevertheless. This was especially noticeable at the beginning of the race. And how the finish line is a comparison of the Trident D-5 with our R-39. Agree that in terms of weight and size, the comparison is not in our favor.

    Quote: Andrew NM
    Americans still can't make normal liquid products

    Do they need it? Do you need SLBMs with liquid engines? IMHO the question is not even worth it.

    Quote: Andrew NM
    Product 3M-65 still had a liquid 3 stage

    So what? A missile is considered liquid or solid fuel, depending on what marching stages it has. I will tell you a few missiles where, with solid propellant marching, there were liquid engines of the dilution stage and vice versa. When a rocket with liquid marching engines were solid-fuel engines of the dilution stage.

    Quote: Andrew NM
    In the late 80s and early 90s, the Americans did everything to ruin our production of liquid rockets, sent commissions here, slipped us equipment for recycling components, etc. We have already begun to deploy this business, but they slowed down in time. They tried to squeeze a conclusion from military representatives from Moscow that the production was allegedly ruined and that the enterprise should be curtailed. This is from the Ministry of Defense and the Navy URAV! It is good that the chief of acceptance did not fall for it; he sent the deputies to the subcontractors, who brought consent and the opportunity for immediate production.

    It would be surprising if it would have been different in "times of trouble". The Americans are faithful to the traditions in such a situation to catch "fish in troubled waters." Of course, it was cheaper for them to slip equipment and pay whoever needed it.

    Quote: Andrew NM
    Over the entire period of operation, there was not a single incident with the D-9RM complex due to the rocket, and indeed there were no problems on the 667BDRM boats due to the rocket complex (I don’t think the 1st Begemot, there was a problem with non-standard products). For 30 years. It's just that a group of "comrades" began to carry a blanket with orders, why take money out of the capital?

    Alas, nobody canceled lobbying. And we have added to this the political component. Who was closer to the body - he is on horseback.

    Quote: Andrew NM
    Please note, the Americans are returning to a complete set of 16 products. So what? And why will a carrier with 16 products become 2000 tons heavier?

    Yes, back to 16 PU. But it is rather difficult to say about the displacement. Now this is only a paper project. What will its displacement be, 2000 tons more than that of the Ohio or not - so far HZ.
    1. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 3 July 2016 18: 41
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      But you must admit that in some cases, solid-fuel American SLBMs had, with the same firing range, smaller dimensions and starting masses.

      This is true only for solid fuel products.
      Quote: Old26
      So what? A missile is considered liquid or solid fuel, depending on what marching stages it has.

      Here the question was raised about the safety of products and they said that this product was solid fuel, they left liquid components, etc. .. If your hands are crooked and there are no brains, you can bring anything you want to an emergency. This is exactly what they did with the 3M-65, I even know who, but he is no longer alive.

      Quote: Old26
      Of course, this would no longer be the R-31 in its original form.

      It would be a product at least in the size of Trident2, and even with our elemental base ... In general, what kind of product designs were not there.
      Quote: Old26
      Do they need it? Do you need SLBMs with liquid engines? IMHO the question is not even worth it.

      They really needed engines.

      And if the topic went, you would still have to look for equipment for winding steps, a new carrier, a new coastal infrastructure. It seems to me that this was one of the main reasons for refusing to develop the topic.
  14. Old26
    Old26 3 July 2016 18: 13
    +1
    Quote: Andrew NM
    And how in the existing weight and size characteristics could the P-31st range be raised?

    Of course, it would no longer be the P-31 in its original form. Among the projects of Arsenal were projects for the modernization of the R-31 using new fuels (rocket F-20), the R-31 modernization project using promising warheads (F-21), project for boats 667B with monoblock warhead (F-24), project for boats 667BDR with mixed warhead (F-23), a project with a controlled BB (F-26), finally a project for boats 941 project (F-17).
    But alas. Makeev became a monopoly and "strangled" Arsenal's missile sector in his arms.

    Quote: Vadim237
    Yes, they’ll even just put it at the pier, it will be not far away as a launch platform for missile defense.

    Too shy to ask. What radar? Discovery? Shooting?

    Quote: Vadim237
    Then why is the accuracy of warheads - KO is brought up to 90 - 120 meters - if they will be beaten in cities? "It is senseless and stupid enough to hit in the mines where there are no more missiles" - And we will never know if there are missiles left there or they are not there.

    Do you think that rocket # 1 at the launch site is intended for firing at cities, and for example # 2 and # 3 - at military bases? There can be several flight missions loaded into a rocket, for example 5 or 6. For flight mission No. 1 it can be a missile silo, No. 2 - a naval base, No. 3 - a power plant, for example, or a city. Therefore, the KVO is brought to such values. There is also an empirical formula: "a two-fold increase in accuracy is equivalent to a three-fold increase in power."

    Quote: Poplar505
    Ours will never give a command to launch those PUs whose PZ determines the defeat of large cities. Why?
    Too many "elite" offspring of our powers that be are wasting their lives and our money there. In the most extreme case, such an order will not be given at all.
    For those who object to me reasonably, I ask you to count these very foreign ones. And whose they will be.
    Negative ...

    And the one who gives the team knows which PP for whom? Even starting calculations do not know this ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 July 2016 19: 06
      0
      "I hesitate to ask. What radar? Detection? Shooting?" - Escorts, and the firing system can be put on the submarine itself, it will work in automatic mode, and the launches will be detected by satellites - after all, the US has a satellite group of early warning systems much more than ours and it is part of the missile defense system.
  15. Old26
    Old26 3 July 2016 22: 36
    0
    Quote: Andrey NM
    This is true only for solid fuel products.

    And I wrote that with similar characteristics, solid fuel often (but not always) had smaller mass and dimensions than liquid ones. Although in order to seriously compare, you need to bring them to the same range and then watch.

    Quote: Andrey NM
    Here the question was raised about the safety of products and they said that this product was solid fuel, they left liquid components, etc. .. If your hands are crooked and there are no brains, you can bring anything you want to an emergency. This is exactly what they did with the 3M-65, I even know who, but he is no longer alive.

    Do not add, do not turn down. Curvature and lack of brains can do anything. Kill even the most deadly.

    Quote: Andrey NM
    It would be a product at least in the size of Trident2, and even with our elemental base ... In general, what kind of product designs were not there.

    Maybe. Alas, we will not know it. Separate names of missiles with a brief description can still be found, but not details

    Quote: Andrey NM
    They really needed engines.

    And if the topic went, you would still have to look for equipment for winding steps, a new carrier, a new coastal infrastructure. It seems to me that this was one of the main reasons for refusing to develop the topic.

    Do not really understand your idea? When were you needed? At the initial stage of the creation of SLBMs?

    Quote: Vadim237
    "I hesitate to ask. What radar? Detection? Shooting?" - Escorts, and the firing system can be put on the submarine itself, it will work in automatic mode, and the launches will be detected by satellites - after all, the US has a satellite group of early warning systems much more than ours and it is part of the missile defense system.

    Escort? Something new. In fact, on the ships on which the missile defense stands, there is a universal radar with a phased array. 4 antennas. measuring 3,65 by 3.85 meters. And where will you put them on boats? Moreover, to increase the detection range they are installed at a height of about 12 meters above the deck. What about the boat?
    Radar tracking is not needed. Need radar SPRN for prolongation of trajectories. And why a boat, when it is much more profitable to deploy all this on a surface ship
    1. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 4 July 2016 07: 01
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Do not really understand your idea? When were you needed? At the initial stage of the creation of SLBMs?

      They tried to obtain information on the quantity, characteristics, applicability, development prospects and a number of other issues. This is on the engines. That's how RD-180 began to be used.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 4 July 2016 10: 58
      0
      So these radars will not be on the submarine, but on the shore - the greater the coverage, the better. You can push a lot of missiles into the submarine - 154 pieces.
  16. Old26
    Old26 4 July 2016 00: 18
    +1
    Quote: sevtrash
    Dear, there is information on Wiki at least.
    You would read. About 30 countries of the world interact with the United States on their missile defense. And of course, both the Czech Republic and Poland are in the same place. And there is a list of a dozen missile defense radars.

    Of course, you can read Vika if there is no other. You write that there’s a list of about a dozen missile defense radars?
    There's a list of a dozen radars MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS... And this and the missile defense radar are two different things. The article mentions only FIVE ABM RADARS - these are the PAR and MAR radars, which were used in the Sentinel-Safeguard system to target the Spartan and Sprint anti-missiles (in North Dakota), XBR (on Kwajalein), FBX-T (on Honshu) and a floating SBX in Alaska. Everything. Everything else, although it is part of the general missile defense system, is an early warning system.

    Quote: sevtrash
    Radar Warde is part of the ABM (see again Wiki), the nearest station from the Russian border - 60 km, determines the fast capture, the subsequent transfer of the radar to Thule, Failinglades for escort.

    The station in Ward is an auxiliary facility. It does not have a headlamp with electron beam scanning, but a parabolic antenna. Does this tell you something?

    Quote: sevtrash
    New more accurate AMDR radars are supposed to be placed in the Czech Republic and Korea, maybe Japan. This placement allows you to block all launch zones of Russian ICBMs.

    On the radar in the Czech Republic, they put an end to 2009 after a decision was made not to place GBI in Poland. Now there is a radar - like a dead poultice. Moreover, the range of this ship's radar is not much greater than the range of AN / SPY-1D (V). But his power consumption is 12 MW and the supply voltage is not 400 V, but 4,3 kW. This year they will try to put on one of the destroyers, and there will be a lot of alterations in energy supply and protective equipment.

    Quote: sevtrash
    Construction of missile defense elements is underway in Redzikovo, SM2018 block 3a should be deployed by 2, and block 2020b will be ready by 2.

    By 2018, they can place "block 2A". But about "block 2B" - the program is frozen and it is not known when it will be launched. This will require colossal alterations of all Aegis ships. Since the "Block 2B" missiles are 15,2 cm larger in diameter than "Block 2A" and all previous models.

    Quote: sevtrash
    Is there any doubt that it will work?

    There is

    Quote: sevtrash
    The GBI and block 2b missiles will be able to shoot down the Vypolzovo and Tatishchevo ICBMs within 300 seconds from launch.

    In order for block 2B to be able to shoot down ICBMs, there must be a radar in this region, and not with a range of 1000 km. Well, the fact that within 300 seconds the ICBM will be interrupted by the GBI interceptor is generally enchanting. From Alaska or from California in 300 seconds ....
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 4 July 2016 11: 01
      0
      The speed of the GBI rocket is 25000 kilometers per hour - we get that in 300 seconds, it will fly 2100 kilometers
  17. Vadim237
    Vadim237 4 July 2016 11: 10
    0
    "By 2018, they can place" Block 2A ". But about" Block 2B "- the program is frozen and it is not known when it will be launched. This will require colossal alterations of all ships with the" Aegis "system. Since the" Block 2B "missiles are 15,2 , 2 cm larger in diameter than "block XNUMXA" and all previous models ". It is precisely for these missiles that the United States can begin to create ships - launch platforms, as well as place new ground-based launchers on its territory and in Europe - the development of missile defense systems continues and the United States has no obstacles in this regard.
  18. Mairos
    Mairos 4 July 2016 12: 58
    0
    On performance characteristics "Trident - 2" breaks everyone like a hot water bottle. Our SLBMs have noticeably worse characteristics. (((Very upset.
  19. Old26
    Old26 4 July 2016 18: 30
    0
    Quote: Operator
    Any stationary radars of NATO, Japan and South Korea located in the radius of flight of Iskander-M are nothing more than cardboard dope: before launching Russian ICBMs, above each of these radars at an altitude of 30-40 km (outside the range of missile defense) An 100 CT warhead explodes, shielding an overview of the ICBM flight paths.

    Andrew! Your proposal is not realistic in principle. And at once on several positions.

    The early warning radars simply do not exist within the reach of the Iskander-M. This is the first.

    Second. What you propose can only be accomplished with the help of ICBMs or MDBs.

    And the third. The alarm will be immediately after the SPRN satellite detects the launch of an intercontinental missile. And the start will not be single. Well, the explosion of warheads over such radars is a signal, and unequivocal, that Russia will now launch its missiles. And who will be in time earlier for 3-5 minutes, and who later no longer has fundamental significance. In addition, only part of the radars will be disabled. So this is not an option

    Quote: Vadim237
    So these radars will not be on the submarine, but on the shore - the greater the coverage, the better. You can push a lot of missiles into the submarine - 154 pieces.

    Do not invent "crazy options". Shooting radar on the shore, and missiles on the boat? Can then deploy all the other components on the shore? For example, a fire control system? Then why do you need a boat? Do what the Americans are doing now in Romania and Poland. Radar + launchers. And all on the shore.
    With regard to the number of "missiles on the boat". Trim some sturgeon. From 96 120 up. No more.

    Quote: Vadim237
    "By 2018, they can place" Block 2A ". But about" Block 2B "- the program is frozen and it is not known when it will be launched. This will require colossal alterations of all ships with the" Aegis "system. Since the" Block 2B "missiles are 15,2 , 2 cm larger in diameter than "block XNUMXA" and all previous models ". It is precisely for these missiles that the United States can begin to create ships - launch platforms, as well as place new ground-based launchers on its territory and in Europe - the development of missile defense systems continues and the United States has no obstacles in this regard.

    You should not consider the Americans the way Mikhail Zadornov shows them in his speeches. They are not stupid and can count money. And they will not start creating ships-launch platforms for anti-missile missiles, having spit on the versatility of launchers. They will not have assorted items. In addition, the idea of ​​platform ships (arsenal ships) turned out to be stillborn. And they will not spend many billions on re-equipment of their numerous ships equipped with Mk.41 launchers without need. In addition, just like that, they will not be able to place their launchers where they want. To be able to fire at an ICBM, in addition to a missile, a firing radar is also required. And even they do not have the required range now.
    1. Operator
      Operator 4 July 2016 19: 21
      0
      I was not talking about SPRN radars in fact, but generally about any stationary radars of NATO, South Korea and Japan, and only within a radius of 500 km from our borders.

      And the bombing of the 100 CT warheads over each of these stationary radars is not directed against detecting a mass launch of Russian ICBMs, but against the operation of radars in external target designation for missile components of the US missile defense system located near the borders of Russia on board destroyers and missile bases in Poland and Romania .

      And so let the satellites and radars outside the 500-km border fix the launch of Russian ICBMs across the United States - they can only try to intercept their remaining components of the missile defense system at the final atmospheric portion of the flight of the combat units.

      Comparing chances, so to speak.
  20. Old26
    Old26 4 July 2016 20: 08
    0
    Quote: Operator
    I was not talking about SPRN radars in fact, but generally about any stationary radars of NATO, South Korea and Japan, and only within a radius of 500 km from our borders.

    But in this way, at such distances, we "extinguish" our radars.

    Quote: Operator
    And the bombing of the 100 CT warheads over each of these stationary radars is not directed against detecting a mass launch of Russian ICBMs, but against the operation of radars in external target designation for missile components of the US missile defense system located near the borders of Russia on board destroyers and missile bases in Poland and Romania .

    These radars are not tied to the targeting chain for US missile defense systems. Each ship, each missile defense ground base in Romania and Poland has its own radar. And they are tied to the EWS radar + EWS satellites. And they can be outside the "extinguished" NATO radars.
    And as I said earlier. Undermining the YaBG over the enemy’s radar will automatically launch the US strategic nuclear attack strike system

    Quote: Operator
    And so let the satellites and radars outside the 500-km border record the launch of Russian ICBMs across the United States - they can only try to intercept their remaining components of the missile defense system at the final atmospheric portion of the flight of the combat units. Comparison of chances, so to speak.

    The nearest SARS radar is in the UK. EMNIP her detection range of about 5000-6000 km. Satellites will detect launches in about 5-15 seconds. So the information will go to ships and missile defense bases, regardless of whether they are applied to stationary radars located at a distance of 500 km from the territory of Russia or not.
  21. Vadim237
    Vadim237 4 July 2016 20: 18
    0
    @ Trim some sturgeon. From 96 to 120. No more. "Ohio already carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles - they are the same in diameter as SM 3 Block IIB missiles - which will not be delivered in the future, they will also introduce new radars, as well as increase the grouping of missile defense missile defense missile satellites.
    Currently, it is planned to continue the deployment of the US NMD system. Further plans for the period until 2025:

    The creation of the third missile defense area of ​​the continental United States, covering the industrial centers of the Atlantic coast;
    Bringing the total number of missile defense systems GBMD in the United States to 56 (28 in Alaska, 14 in California and 14 on the Atlantic coast); in the future, up to 100 missiles.
    Deployment of stationary versions of the Aegis missile defense system SM-3 in Europe to cover the territory of the European allies of the United States.
    An increase in the number of ships with an anti-ballistic version of the Aegis system to 32 units, subsequently all 70 destroyers.
    Aegis-based missile defense system integration in the Japanese Navy.
    Development of promising aviation-based weapons.
  22. Operator
    Operator 4 July 2016 20: 42
    -1
    At the moment of explosions of Iskander nuclear warheads over the radars of the NATO, Japanese and South Korean missile defense systems, our radars will be disabled and will not be affected by EMP. The explosions themselves are intended to create shielding regions of ionized air at an altitude of 30-40 km above the enemy's radar positions in the direction of the survey of Russian ICBM routes.

    The remoteness of ionized air areas from Russian radars at least 500 km away will not make them difficult to detect targets.

    Naturally, the launch of Iskander in the direction of the enemy's missile defense radar should be carried out only after the Russian early warning system (including satellite optical, radar over-the-horizon and radar over-the-horizon components) of a massive missile launch towards Russia is fixed.
  23. Old26
    Old26 4 July 2016 22: 52
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    @ Trim some sturgeon. From 96 to 120. No more. "Ohio already carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles - they are the same in diameter as SM 3 Block IIB missiles - which will not be delivered in the future, they will also introduce new radars, as well as increase the grouping of missile defense missile defense missile satellites.

    Carry. But they are not in containers. And anti-missiles due to aerodynamic surfaces should be in containers.
    SM 3 Block IIB will have a diameter of 27 inches instead of 21 for SM 3 Block IA, Block IB, Block IIA. This means that the diameter will be 686 mm. The diameter of the container will be at least 746, but rather 786 mm. The diameter of the Trident-2 mine can accommodate 4-5 containers. So cut from 154 Tomahawks to 96-120 hypothetical interceptors.

    No one will introduce new radars. This is a very expensive pleasure. They will replace the old SPRN radars with new ones, deploy additional ones to what has already been announced - no. They have a continuous field. Moreover, the new SPRN satellites - they already have a complete set. But even if they increase it, this will not change the situation.


    Quote: Vadim237
    Currently, it is planned to continue the deployment of the US NMD system. Further plans for the period until 2025:

    The creation of the third missile defense area of ​​the continental United States, covering the industrial centers of the Atlantic coast;
    Bringing the total number of missile defense systems GBMD in the United States to 56 (28 in Alaska, 14 in California and 14 on the Atlantic coast); in the future, up to 100 missiles.

    What year do you have information? Early 2000s? it was then that the question arose of creating a third PR and bringing the number of interceptors to the indicated numbers. But in California there are only 4 of them now. In Alaska - almost a complete set. And about the East coast - grave silence. Even on the site of the missile defense agency.

    Quote: Vadim237
    Deployment of stationary versions of the Aegis missile defense system SM-3 in Europe to cover the territory of the European allies of the United States.

    From Russian missiles? Using SM 3 Block IB in Romania and SM 3 Block IIA in Poland ?? Interceptors who are not able to intercept an ICBM BB?
  24. Old26
    Old26 4 July 2016 23: 03
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    At the moment of explosions of Iskander nuclear warheads over the radars of the NATO, Japanese and South Korean missile defense systems, our radars will be disabled and will not be affected by EMP.

    How do you imagine that? Are there military operations, and will Russian radars be turned off?

    Quote: Operator
    The explosions themselves are designed to create shielding areas of ionized air at an altitude of 30-40 km above the positions of enemy radars in the direction of the survey of Russian ICBM routes.

    That's just, I will repeat it again. No early warning radars that will monitor the routes of the weeks in the reach of Iskander-M

    Quote: Operator
    Naturally, the launch of Iskander in the direction of the enemy's missile defense radar should be carried out only after the Russian early warning system (including satellite optical, radar over-the-horizon and radar over-the-horizon components) of a massive missile launch towards Russia is fixed.

    Would you decide whether missile defense radars or SPRN radars? And if a mass launch of ICBMs toward Russia is recorded, then why do what you propose? Might nevertheless shy away on the radar itself with a nuclear warhead?
    1. Operator
      Operator 4 July 2016 23: 41
      0
      No one in a combat situation canceled the knowledge of the Iskander flight time to the calculated point of detonation of a nuclear warhead over the location of the enemy's missile defense radar. Therefore, turning off your radars for 2-3 seconds before the explosive generation of EMP within the radio horizon is quite feasible.

      Once again, the creation of screening ionizing regions of the airspace is advisable only above the missile defense radar, since it is on them that interception of at least part of Russian ICBMs depends. The explosion of the Iskander warhead in the upper layers of the atmosphere is preferable to a ground explosion at the location of the radar, since the latter are still protected by anti-missiles (do we need these risks?).

      And from self-blowing maneuvering warheads at an altitude of 30-40 km there is no protection and is not expected.
  25. Old26
    Old26 5 July 2016 08: 37
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    No one in a combat situation canceled the knowledge of the Iskander flight time to the calculated point of detonation of a nuclear warhead over the location of the enemy's missile defense radar. Therefore, turning off your radars for 2-3 seconds before the explosive generation of EMP within the radio horizon is quite feasible.

    Nobody says that it is not technically feasible. But the fighting is not an Iskander-radar duel. In addition to them, dozens if not hundreds of units of destruction will be involved. And imagine a situation when, for example, a short-range ballistic missile is walking in your direction, and at this time you turn off the radars in a certain area. And that will be?
    I do not even mention that the apogee of the trajectory of the complex is about 50 km. And if we take an ideal parabola, the Iskander will reach such a height approximately in the middle of the flight range, that is, about 250 km.
    I repeat for you again. Within such a range there is NOT A SINGLE PRO PROFESSIONAL RADAR. Neither American nor NATO. That is, how you are going to blow up nuclear weapons over what is not - you only know

    Quote: Operator
    Once again, the creation of screening ionizing regions of the airspace is advisable only above the missile defense radar, since it is on them that interception of at least part of Russian ICBMs depends. The explosion of the Iskander warhead in the upper layers of the atmosphere is preferable to a ground explosion at the location of the radar, since the latter are still protected by anti-missiles (do we need these risks?).

    There can be only one missile defense radar, which theoretically can be there in the next three or four years. Radar based on missile defense. Others are not there and are not expected. The base will most likely be protected, but not by its own anti-missiles, but by other complexes, for example, the Patriot. but there will also be ships outside your hypothetical radius
  26. Old26
    Old26 April 19 2020 13: 17
    +1
    Quote: Peter Tverdokhlebov
    What is a large transport hub?

    A city located at the intersection of many routes, a junction station. In the North Caucasus, such a large transport hub is the city of Kropotkin (station Caucasian). Not only are several railway lines converging from different sides, but the station itself is almost 2 dozen tracks, a large locomotive depot. It was at this station that wagons from dead ends clung to passing trains (south or north). The city itself is less than 80 thousand. But the transport hub is much larger compared to the same Rostov-on-Don