The Russian Armed Forces adopted the Bulava sea-based intercontinental ballistic missile.

The Russian Armed Forces adopted the Bulava sea-based intercontinental ballistic missile.

141
The Russian Armed Forces adopted the Bulava sea-based intercontinental ballistic missile.

The Russian army has adopted the sea-based Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile.

The Bulava ICBM, which has three solid-fuel stages, is designed to arm Project 955 (Borey) and Project 955A (Borey-A) submarines. The range of the Bulava exceeds nine thousand kilometers. The missile has up to ten maneuverable individually targetable nuclear warheads with a capacity of 100-150 kilotons each. Russian nuclear submarines are capable of carrying 16 missiles of this type. The development of the Bulava ICBM began in 1998, launches have been carried out since 2004, and since 2013 all tests have been carried out as usual.



Earlier it was reported that test launches of the Bulava ICBM were carried out from the Project 955A Borei strategic missile submarine. The launches were carried out as part of the final stage of state acceptance.

Russia maintains stability in the construction of nuclear submarines fleet and demonstrates its new missile weapons to the whole world. At the same time, the US Army is still in service with Minuteman missiles, which, according to regulations, should have ceased their service in 1999.
141 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Anarchist Rank
    Anarchist
    0
    14 May 2024 15: 39
    Duma, the hotheads of the collective West should think about it. Otherwise, their heads will burn later...
    1. krot Rank
      krot
      +6
      14 May 2024 17: 40
      At the same time, the US Army is still in service with Minuteman missiles, which, according to regulations, should have ceased their service in 1999.

      Backward country..
  2. U-58 Rank
    U-58
    +1
    14 May 2024 15: 42
    Thus, we are imposing a nuclear arms race on the West, primarily on the United States.
    They will have to fork out money to fend off our actions and create their own fresh samples.
    In fact, this is precisely our adequate response to NATO’s current encroachments in our direction.
    Well, let them push themselves...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      +3
      14 May 2024 15: 55
      Quote: U-58
      They will have to fork out money to counter our actions

      I’m sorry, but so far the Trident 2 D5 covers the mace like a bull covers a sheep... In terms of solid fuel missiles, we are catching up
      1. zombirusrev Rank
        zombirusrev
        -2
        14 May 2024 16: 18
        Where does the information come from...that you have access or have you read Novaya Gazeta? Link to sources in the studio “Otherwise ff..fftopk.” (c) I’ll say right away that you don’t have permission, but let the Americans continue to advertise their military-industrial complex in the open press.. that’s their job, and are you also on their payroll?
        1. JD1979 Rank
          JD1979
          -29
          14 May 2024 16: 24
          Info from the manufacturer's website))) Alas, the Pin is complete crap. Although this is a typical result when “jamshots” get down to business
          1. JD1979 Rank
            JD1979
            -10
            14 May 2024 18: 44
            Are 17 MIT students offended?)))
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          -3
          14 May 2024 16: 47
          Quote: zombirusrev
          This is their job, and are you also in their pay?

          Certainly. For a small bribe
          1. Bad_gr Rank
            Bad_gr
            0
            14 May 2024 18: 26
            Quote: zombirusrev
            Where does the information come from...that you have access or have you read Novaya Gazeta?
            Let's assume that our fuel has the same energy level as the American one. Comparing the mass of rockets
            "Trident" launch weight ------ 58,9 t
            "Bulava" starting mass--------- 36,8 t
            Hence the weight of the warheads and the range to which they can be thrown. Perhaps ours can maneuver in the final sector (to pass the missile defense system), but the Tradent has more capabilities to carry decoys.
            1. bayard Rank
              bayard
              +2
              15 May 2024 02: 13
              Quote: Bad_gr
              "Trident" launch weight ------ 58,9 t
              "Bulava" launch weight--------- 36,8 t

              The throw weight of Trident-2 is almost 2 times higher.
              But the Trident-2 rocket itself is much OLDER. They have been produced since the early 80s, and the last ones were assembled at the very beginning of the 90s. They are older than even our "Sineva". Same age with "Voevoda", which are now being written off.
              Everything about them (Tridents) is old. It’s only worse with the “Minutemen” - they’re generally from the early 70s, developed in the late 60s.
              Of course, the fuel in them was changed, and most likely more than once, but... AGE. The whole world admired how the English “Tridents” fly now, and they almost destroyed their own SSBN. But these are the same age as the American Tridents... Maybe the x0xLs have jinxed them?
              In addition, when comparing, it is not only the range that matters (Trizub has 11 km only when launched with ONE warhead, but with a full set it flies a little further than 000 km) and the throwable weight, but also the power/power of its warhead.
              What does the Trident have when loading 10 nuclear weapons?
              Correctly 10 x 50 Kt.
              What about Bulava?
              That's right - 10 x 100\150 Kt.
              So which one of them is great?
              And if we consider that the Bulava can also be equipped with the latest nuclear weapons, which were invented for Yars in Sarov? The same ones that can be 8 or even 10 on Yars. , and at the same time their power is 500 Kt. In late Soviet times (such a quantity and such power) it was possible to carry quite heavy ICBMs such as Molodets, Typhoon and UR-100UTTH. And here are light ICBMs and SLBMs (Yars and Bulava) with the same potential.
              Now compare.
              And look carefully at the age and condition of their (US) SSBNs. The first ones were built there back in the 70s.
              And our oldest “Dolphins” were in the 80s and early 90s.

              Somehow the hegemon's pants were torn in all places.
          2. Boa kaa Rank
            Boa kaa
            +1
            14 May 2024 20: 35
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Certainly. For a small bribe

            Andrey, don't joke like that anymore! Otherwise, people on our website who are gullible about trolling may take your banter seriously.
            In fact. The colleague didn’t even bother to look at the performance characteristics of the products. For example, on SKO BB. Yes
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              +4
              14 May 2024 20: 58
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Andrey, don't joke like that anymore! Otherwise, people on our website who are gullible about trolling may take your banter seriously.

              Alexander, what's the difference? With a certain regularity, I am signed up either as a mercenary of United Russia or as a foreign agent in the US - it depends on whether I am defending some product of the domestic military industry or criticizing it :))))) VO commentators have already convinced me that I am a double agent of the Kremlin and the Capitol, and an honorary reptilian Mason to the heap. I have come to terms with it :))))))
              1. Boa kaa Rank
                Boa kaa
                +3
                14 May 2024 21: 13
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I have come to terms with it :))))))

                I am categorically against it!!! You are still “the best author of the year at VO”!!!
                I can only answer your post with the immortal Pushkin:
                “Rise, the prophet, and see, and heed,
                Be satisfied by my will,
                And, bypassing the sea and the earth,
                Verb burn the hearts of people. " laughing
                It's time for you to remind your colleagues about yourself and come up with something really cool. fellow
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  +1
                  16 May 2024 16: 37
                  Thank you, Alexander, for your support and kind words! hi drinks
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  It’s time for you to remind your colleagues about yourself and come up with something cool

                  Well, I’ve written a small note about BECs here, perhaps it will be interesting :)
                  1. Boa kaa Rank
                    Boa kaa
                    +1
                    16 May 2024 16: 44
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Thank you, Alexander, for your support and kind words! hi drinks
                    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                    It’s time for you to remind your colleagues about yourself and come up with something cool

                    Well, I’ve written a small note about BECs here, perhaps it will be interesting :)

                    It will be published and I will read it with pleasure. Thoughts will appear, maybe I’ll write something in response.
                    The main thing is not to go into the mud. And so there is nothing to read, and substantive discussions can only be done with knowledgeable (those versed in the topic) people.
                    Sincerely, Boa. drinks
      2. Victor Leningradets Rank
        Victor Leningradets
        +2
        14 May 2024 16: 24
        Good day, Andrey!
        Yes, it doesn’t really cover ours. There are a lot of nuances here, but in terms of damaging ability they are almost equal. And with Sineva, Trident 2 is generally on par. The fashion for solid-fuel rockets leads to the fact that the characteristics of rocket engines degrade, which provokes incidents like 21.02.2024.
        If we were simultaneously developing a liquid-propellant rocket engine carrier, then in terms of weight and dimensions the Bulava would have parity or an advantage in comparison with the Trident D5 in all characteristics. And the solid fuel version could be developed in the direction of increasing the combat load while reducing the range.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          -4
          14 May 2024 16: 45
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          Yes, it doesn’t really cover ours.

          Yes, quite a lot :)
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          and in terms of destructive power they are almost equal.

          The range and throwing weight of the Maces are inferior, but this is no joke
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          The fashion for solid-fuel rockets leads to the fact that the characteristics of rocket engines degrade, which provokes incidents like 21.02.2024.

          Not certainly in that way. As I already wrote below
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In short, ICBMs can fly on liquid or solid fuel. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.

          Of course, one of the disadvantages of solid fuel rockets is their shorter service life. But there are also advantages.
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          And with Sineva, Trident 2 is generally on par.

          That's why I wrote below
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          For a long time, for various reasons, we relied on liquid-propellant rockets; they are excellent. Take the same "Sineva", for example.

          And that she is parity with Trident, I don’t argue with that at all. Unlike Bulava, unfortunately
          1. mark1 Rank
            mark1
            +1
            14 May 2024 17: 11
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The range and throwing weight of the Maces are inferior, but this is no joke

            Yes, what a joke, but at max. With the weight thrown, the range of the Trident 2 is 7800 km in a straight line, while ours flies in zigzags, i.e. if in a straight line it turns out to be 11 -11,5 thousand. And the Americans do not plan to hit from the maximum distance - a dagger strike along a flat trajectory (for example, from the North Sea), and due to the flight characteristics of the Bulava, we gain an advantage in range without losing protection from missile defense.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              -2
              14 May 2024 19: 11
              Quote: mark1
              it turns out 7800 km in a straight line

              In full body kit
              Quote: mark1
              and here it flies in zigzags

              ICBMs don't fly in zigzags. At all.
              Its BB can fly in a non-ballistic manner in the final part of its trajectory.
              Quote: mark1
              those. if in a straight line it turns out to be 11 -11,5 thousand.

              (heavy sigh) Our Mace in full combat mode probably flies about 6500 kilometers in a straight line:))))) Only warheads and decoys it carries are 2,4 times less in mass than the Trident
              1. mark1 Rank
                mark1
                -1
                14 May 2024 19: 26
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                ICBMs don't fly in zigzags.

                They fly! At least in the initial section and final
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Our Mace in full combat mode probably flies about 6500 kilometers in a straight line :)))))

                Well, if there is official information on Trident, then here is exclusively your analytics, and according to the official, 8 -000 depending on the load (which, of course, we don’t know)
                We are inferior in terms of warhead power, most likely also in heavy decoys, accuracy is again a question mark, but in general, missile defense systems are our strong point, I think that they are by no means defenseless and no worse than the opponent.
                1. bayard Rank
                  bayard
                  +1
                  15 May 2024 02: 57
                  Quote: mark1
                  We are inferior in terms of warhead power, most likely also in heavy decoys, accuracy is again a question mark,

                  But here it’s exactly the opposite - the power density of our nuclear warheads is much higher than the old (!) American warheads. Progress (in our country) has not stood still, but in the USA there is a very serious bottleneck and degradation with this matter (except for the “ultra-low-power” ones). We slept on the laurels of the winners of the Cold War for another round of technological progress.
                  But Sarov did not sleep with us. Therefore, the new nuclear warheads for Yars have a power of up to 500 Kt. , can stand on this light ICBM in the amount of 8 (or even 10) pieces. In the late USSR, only “Molodets” and “Typhoon” had as much power (and such power, but of a different design).
                  The Bulava, with a shorter range than the Yars, has the same throw weight. Therefore, without much difficulty, 6-8 BBs of 500 Kt can be equipped. , or the 10th BB with a capacity of 150 Kt.
                  What about Trident?
                  And the Trizub can accept 10 BBs with a capacity of 50 kt each.
                  ...And here Zrada crept up.
                  Why
                  Because the rockets are OLD and already at the limit of their service life. Older than our liquid "Sineva".
                  And SSBNs are old for them too. Older than our oldest Dolphins.
                  And there is no replacement for them in the short term...
                  All our SSBNs and the missiles they carry are much younger than their counterparts, in good technical condition, and their nuclear warheads... are more interesting than American ones.

                  But if Sarov had not pleased him with new warheads with a much higher power density, the Bulava would have been the “weakest” SLBM today.
                  But it is at least equivalent to the Trident in terms of impact capabilities. In essence, this is an analogue of the Yars, but with a shorter range.
                  1. mark1 Rank
                    mark1
                    0
                    15 May 2024 07: 44
                    Quote: bayard
                    the specific power of our nuclear warheads is much higher than the old ones

                    Of course, you have now tried to explain and refute everything brightly and fieryly, but... do you understand the difference between the concepts of “power” and “power density”? Yes, the Americans turned out to be heavier heads than we could have gotten with the same power, but they have 10x450 kT in their base and we have 6x150 kT
                    1. mark1 Rank
                      mark1
                      0
                      15 May 2024 08: 03
                      This is a fact, and Sarov’s achievements are a foundation for the future (subsequent modifications)
                    2. bayard Rank
                      bayard
                      0
                      15 May 2024 10: 12
                      Quote: mark1
                      they have 10x450 kT in their database

                      What nonsense did you write? The ever-memorable MX ICBM had so many such nuclear warheads, but that was a long time ago and it was much heavier than the Trident. The same amount (10 x 500 Kt) was on our Typhoons, but their starting weight was also under 100 tons.
                      According to reference data, up to 2 BBs of 8 Kt can be installed on Trizub-475. Or 10 x 100 ct. With such a load, its range will be 7838 km. In the previous post I got a little excited, my memory failed me about its predecessor.
                      Quote: mark1
                      and we have 6x150 kT

                      This is with old nuclear warheads, but new ones already exist and are installed on Yars and Bulava, because the missiles are in production and are being supplied to the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy. And since the throw weight of the Yars and the Bulava is approximately the same, the Bulava can carry 6-8 nuclear warheads of 500 Kt each. for the declared range, and up to 10 such blocks for a slightly shorter (but sufficient) range.
                      Quote: mark1
                      Do you understand the difference between the concepts of “power” and “power density”?

                      Of course, we divide the power of the warhead by the weight of the ammunition in kilograms.
                      Now both the Tridents and the Bulavas with the Yars carry significantly fewer nuclear warheads than are possible in order to comply with the framework agreements limiting nuclear warheads on strategic carriers to 1550 units. At least until recently. And now the period is already threatened.
                      Quote: mark1
                      Yes, the Americans turned out to have heavier heads than we could have gotten with the same power

                      Their warheads were created in the 80s of the last century. And we are now ending the first quarter of the 21st century. We were just dealing with this issue. Because new missiles were being built, they needed new warheads, so they made them. More compact, with significantly higher power density. Why be surprised? A representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reported this to Congress as alarming news.
                      So now we have the technical ability to install nuclear warheads with a capacity of 2 Mt on a conventional missile launcher (for example, “Caliber”). Before this it was even impossible to imagine.
                      And it was these warheads that raised the capabilities of the Bulava to the level of Trident-2. Which is certainly a very good rocket.
                      But our light "Bulava" did reach its level. Thanks to new, more efficient nuclear warheads.
                      And our good old “Sineva” and “Liner” are simply equivalent to it (Trident).
                      1. mark1 Rank
                        mark1
                        0
                        15 May 2024 10: 55
                        Why are you drowning me out with Zen information! I also know how to read and I read all this, and like you, I also rejoiced and am rejoicing. But even if everything is so good and new warheads are flowing like a wide river to supply the army and navy (although “The Bulava was most likely designed taking into account the weight of the new warheads), then the power of the charge is determined by the nature of the target (and the power has long been calculated), and the total quantity is limited by agreement START (i.e., in order to add something somewhere, you need to take something away somewhere) So saving in weight can go either to increasing the range (which is not very important) or to strengthening active and passive means of overcoming missile defense, about which I actually wrote it.
                      2. bayard Rank
                        bayard
                        0
                        15 May 2024 12: 30
                        Quote: mark1
                        Why are you drowning me out with Zen information!

                        I had other sources, sorry, but I don’t use Zen.
                        Quote: mark1
                        the total quantity is limited by the START treaty (i.e., in order to add something somewhere, you need to take something away somewhere)

                        Now there is no need to take anything away - the New START Treaty has been suspended by both sides, inspections are not carried out, reports are not sent. In a year, the contract ends and will not be renewed (at least in its previous form). In conditions where England and France have declared their intention to launch a nuclear strike on us, inflict military defeat on us and are actual participants in this conflict, we have every justified right to increase the number of nuclear weapons on strategic carriers at least equal to the total potential of England and France. And this is 128 deployed SLBMs on 8 SSBNs and up to 500 nuclear warheads on them. Not counting the tactical nuclear weapons that they (especially France) also have. We can compensate for this potential by deploying RSD and upgrading all our nuclear weapons carriers to full strength. This (especially the second) can be done quite quickly and without any problems.
                        Quote: mark1
                        even if everything is so good and new warheads are pouring in like a wide river to supply the army and navy

                        They are simply in mass production and supplied to the Strategic Missile Forces and Strategic Nuclear Forces. Therefore, all newly arriving and recently received ICBMs and SLBMs have them at their breeding stages. Re-equipment of previously delivered ICBMs and SLBMs can be carried out routinely as new nuclear warheads and everything necessary for their deployment arrive.
                        New-generation nuclear warheads are also being supplied to equip missile launchers and missile launchers/generators of anti-ship missiles. Already previous generations of nuclear warheads had power switches, most likely new products have them too. This is to the question that the choice of power is made at the moment of assigning a goal.
                        Quote: mark1
                        savings in weight can go either to increasing range (which is not very important) or to strengthening active and passive means of overcoming missile defense, which is what I actually wrote about.

                        This is true in peacetime when restrictions apply. In a threatened period, all these conventions go to waste and all carriers are loaded to capacity, new targets are assigned, and BBs are reserved - for each target, 2 nuclear warheads from different carriers - for insurance. .
                      3. mark1 Rank
                        mark1
                        0
                        15 May 2024 12: 49
                        The only question, without going into assessments, is this how it is or how you see it?
                      4. bayard Rank
                        bayard
                        0
                        15 May 2024 13: 36
                        Quote: mark1
                        without going into assessments - is it so or is that how you see it?

                        You can consider this my evaluative opinion, but for the most part this is all true.
                        Well, think for yourself - England and France are essentially presenting an ultimatum to Russia - like “don’t you dare defeat Ukraine.” These peppers were called to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a sincere conversation, after which for some reason they began to turn the fraternity back.
                        Why did they start giving up?
                        Because it was explained to them. About the same as me now, but perhaps in different words. It was even tougher there.
                        The French have already been kicked out of Africa (not all of them yet, but the process is underway), and the USA too. Now France is already being driven out of their colony in Latin America (French Guiana). And if they take England seriously... they’ve already promised.
                        And the fraer is handed back.
                        The time has come for VERY serious conversations and peacetime customs no longer apply. The Anglo-Saxons now need to be very careful and careful, because they have already gone too far.
                        Did they want to defeat Russia on the battlefield?
                        Lavrov has already answered - on the battlefield, so on the battlefield. We are ready, but it was your choice.
                      5. mark1 Rank
                        mark1
                        0
                        15 May 2024 14: 10
                        Quote: bayard
                        You can consider this my assessment opinion,

                        Expectations caused by evaluative opinions usually lead to great disappointments.
                        And do you really seriously think that nuclear charges are riveted together like teapots on an assembly line and in 2-3 seasons you can change unfashionable ones to fashionable ones?
                        But I approve and support your message that it is necessary to sharply increase the production of nuclear units. Especially tactical low and especially low power
                      6. bayard Rank
                        bayard
                        0
                        15 May 2024 15: 58
                        Quote: mark1
                        Expectations caused by evaluative opinions usually lead to great disappointments.

                        I don't think they will be big.
                        Quote: mark1
                        Do you really seriously think that nuclear charges are riveted together like teapots on an assembly line and in 2-3 seasons you can exchange unfashionable ones for fashionable ones?

                        I did not write that all missiles have been re-equipped with new ones. But from the moment the new nuclear warheads were put into service, all Yars and Bulavas were equipped with them. other missiles of these types need modernization. It’s not easy to change the blocks, you have to redo and reflash the breeding stage itself. But in working order, it is possible to gradually rearm as many ICBMs and SLBMs as is considered necessary. But new nuclear warheads did not appear yesterday.
            2. Boa kaa Rank
              Boa kaa
              +2
              14 May 2024 20: 50
              Quote: mark1
              a dagger strike along a flat trajectory (for example from the North Sea),

              Stop with fairy tales. Tr-2 does not shoot on the ground: the accuracy is then terrifying: 2600m!!! And the Trident is designed to “open” the silos of our ICBMs and destroy highly protected buried objects during a strike by the 1st echelon of the BGU. Yes, most likely these will be English Weingards from the North Norwegian Sea. Because the Yankees now keep their Nuts close by in protected ROPs. The only good thing is that they don’t go into the Arctic regions with their SSBNs. They think it's too dangerous.
              1. mark1 Rank
                mark1
                0
                15 May 2024 07: 52
                You are, of course, a braver sailor than me (I am generally a land rat), but I am based on data from open sources - such and such exercises took place there, they were planned and calculated here (I do not rule out hostile disinformation at all)... And plans and goals are 30-40 years ago... as Lyolik said - "Chief - everything will be done at 12 zero-zero according to the newly approved plan"
                1. Boa kaa Rank
                  Boa kaa
                  0
                  15 May 2024 15: 29
                  Quote: mark1
                  And the plans and goals of 30-40 years ago...

                  Colleague, I haven’t delved into history. Data on the BSU layout (1st echelon, etc.) at the beginning of 2023. If you have more recent intelligence information, I would be happy to read it. I’m writing this because I had to do this the day before.
                  Sincerely. Boa.
          2. Dart2027 Rank
            Dart2027
            +2
            14 May 2024 19: 10
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The range and throwing weight of the Maces are inferior, but this is no joke

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And that she is parity with Trident, I don’t argue with that at all. Unlike Bulava, unfortunately

            This is some kind of nonsense. The mace is simply smaller than the Trident. You can compare rockets with approximately the same size and mass, and not when the difference is one and a half times. It's like comparing a shell in a 100mm and 152mm gun.
            Missiles are not created on their own, but with a specific launch vehicle in mind. So the task was given not to “catch up and overtake”, but to have the rocket launched from such and such a launcher. So we did what was required. If, with equal mass, it was inferior to the Trident, then yes, one could talk about backwardness, but they are simply different types.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              +1
              14 May 2024 19: 16
              Dart, are you going there too? Is it okay that Sineva, being much lighter than Trident, has similar payload and range?
              Quote: Dart2027
              Missiles are not created on their own, but with a specific launch vehicle in mind.

              Is it okay that a particular carrier was originally designed for the monstrous Barque of 81 tons?
              Quote: Dart2027
              So the task was given not to “catch up and overtake”, but to have the rocket launched from such and such a launcher. So we did what was required.

              In fact, everything was COMPLETELY different. MIT, which promoted its Poplars to the ground forces, decided to squeeze out naval orders under the guise of unification. And at Yeltsin’s level he persuaded them to equip new SSBNs with their own crafts
              I remember this story very well; it was widely covered in the press in the 90s
              1. Dart2027 Rank
                Dart2027
                +1
                14 May 2024 20: 29
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Is it okay that Sineva, being much lighter than Trident, has similar payload and range?

                We compare solid propellant with solid propellant. The point was that the Mace is worse than the Trident and
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In terms of solid fuel rockets, we are catching up
                This is not entirely true, the Mace is just smaller. Sineva is not a solid fuel rocket.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                the specific carrier was originally designed for the monstrous Barque of 81 tons
                This stupidity was quickly abandoned, and thank God. Super missile carriers look very impressive, but how much do they cost?! So the actual design of the Boreans proceeded as ships with normal dimensions, for which a rocket of appropriate dimensions was required.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                MIT, which promoted its Poplars to the ground forces, decided to squeeze out naval orders under the guise of unification. And at Yeltsin’s level he persuaded them to equip new SSBNs with their own crafts
                Let’s say this was the case, we don’t know the truth, but theoretically there is nothing incredible here, but this does not affect specific technical solutions. If the task was to do it “like theirs,” I think they would have done it.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  +1
                  14 May 2024 20: 43
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  Let's say it happened, we don't know the truth

                  We all know. It was the 90s; anyone who didn’t live then wouldn’t understand. At that time, glasnost... reached dimensions unimaginable today.
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  If the task was to do it “like theirs,” I think they would have done it.

                  This is precisely the task at hand. Bark was created as a response to Trident 2, and Solomonov, the head of MIT, promised that the Bulava would be no worse than Bark, but at the same time lighter. What happened in the end... we all know. As we also know, the failures of MIT led to the failure of all reasonable deadlines for the creation of the rocket - they simply underestimated the complexity of creating a sea-launched ICBM, since they had never dealt with it. And in terms of performance characteristics... well, that’s it.
                  1. Dart2027 Rank
                    Dart2027
                    +2
                    14 May 2024 23: 12
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    It was the 90s; anyone who didn’t live then wouldn’t understand. At that time, glasnost... reached dimensions unimaginable today.

                    I lived then. But there were enough lies in the press of that time. As I already wrote, super missile carriers are very expensive, so they could have sent Bark developers for purely economic reasons.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    As we also know, the failures of MIT led to the failure of all reasonable deadlines for the creation of the rocket

                    And here is also a question. Successful launches began after we began sending home “advisers” and “observers” from the United States.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    And you can hit her. But it’s inferior to Trident

                    Gives in. I’m not saying that it has the same performance characteristics, it’s just that it’s basically smaller.
                    1. Bad_gr Rank
                      Bad_gr
                      0
                      15 May 2024 00: 04
                      Our strategist, being under the ice, when receiving a command to launch missiles, must look for an ice hole, and only launch missiles from it. A modern missile carrier cannot break through ice as thick as the Sharks could handle. But the Bark missile, according to the project, could be fired from under water directly through ice (up to 2,5 m thick), which would be very useful for current missile carriers.
                      1. Bad_gr Rank
                        Bad_gr
                        0
                        15 May 2024 00: 15
                        By the way, there was information in the press that we were developing a new missile for underwater strategists. If I'm not mistaken, JSC "GRC Makeev" was entrusted with this task.
                      2. Dart2027 Rank
                        Dart2027
                        0
                        15 May 2024 19: 26
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Our strategist, being under the ice, when receiving a command to launch missiles, must look for an ice hole, and only launch missiles from it.
                        The question is how he will get this command. At a depth of a hundred meters, and even through the ice... I have strong doubts that this is possible. Rather, he must find wormwood for communication.
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        that we are developing a new missile for underwater strategists. If I'm not mistaken, it was entrusted to JSC "GRC Makeev"

                        Maybe they have sometimes written about new developments before.
                      3. Bad_gr Rank
                        Bad_gr
                        0
                        15 May 2024 22: 19
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        The question is how he will get this command. At a depth of a hundred meters, and even through the ice... I have strong doubts that this is possible.

                        There are several ways to receive a signal at depth. One of them :
                        .....Ultra-low frequency radio communications.......
                        The current lines between the electrodes penetrate the ground and use the area of ​​land between the electrodes as a giant antenna. As a result, the VLF signal is emitted by the ground itself. It easily overcomes great depths and reaches the antennas on submarines, which are long metal cables. This principle is used by the ZEUS communication station, located on the Kola Peninsula, which uses a frequency of 82 Hertz. By the way, the existence of such a transmitter became known only in 1990, since it was classified for a long time.
                        It must be said that this technology is far from ideal. The VLF transmitter is not only very complex, but also has extremely low efficiency. For every watt of electromagnetic energy emitted, the transmitter requires 100 kW of electrical energy. Therefore, a separate power plant is required to power it. Of course, it is impossible to install either a transmitter or an antenna on board a submarine to emit a signal. Therefore, the connection with the boat is one-way...........
                        https://hi-news.ru/eto-interesno/sekrety-svyazi-na-podvodnyx-lodkax-kak-peredayut-signal-skvoz-morskie-glubiny.html
                      4. Dart2027 Rank
                        Dart2027
                        0
                        15 May 2024 22: 28
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        https://hi-news.ru/eto-interesno/sekrety-svyazi-na-podvodnyx-lodkax-kak-peredayut-signal-skvoz-morskie-glubiny.html

                        I read it. Yes, all this is there, but... As they say in the article, all of these are rather complex and ineffective methods. Yes, they are used, but until something fundamentally new appears, nuclear submarines will have to stick to those places where it is possible to float to the surface.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  0
                  14 May 2024 21: 00
                  At the same time, the Bulava, in general, is not that bad a rocket. Not bad. And you can hit her. But it’s inferior to Trident
                  1. Boa kaa Rank
                    Boa kaa
                    0
                    14 May 2024 21: 22
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    But it’s inferior to Trident

                    Rather, with the creation of Bulava-M, I began to breathe down my neck and step on my heels...
                    We urgently need to catch up with the Yankees with minced meat, in terms of avionics, its weight and dimensions, computing performance per unit of volume, etc. And with a decrease in weight, the range will improve, and the accuracy will increase due to the “speed” of the brain, etc. What am I telling you, you yourself know it all very well.
              2. Alex777 Rank
                Alex777
                +3
                14 May 2024 21: 52
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In fact, everything was COMPLETELY different. MIT, which promoted its Poplars to the ground forces, decided to squeeze out naval orders under the guise of unification. And at Yeltsin’s level he persuaded them to equip new SSBNs with their own crafts
                I remember this story very well; it was widely covered in the press in the 90s

                And so it was. 100%. And not only from the press. Yes
                1. bayard Rank
                  bayard
                  +4
                  15 May 2024 06: 11
                  Quote: Alex777
                  And so it was. 100%.

                  It was indeed true, but the main point was missed why "Bark" became impossible for the Russian Federation - Russia and the Makeev Design Bureau lost access to Pavlograd and, in general, to the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau for cooperation and MANUFACTURING steps to the "Bark". At that time (and even now) in the Russian Federation they only knew how to wind engine casings of this diameter. All the science in this matter was concentrated there. Designers and technologists from Votkinsk and Voskresensk went there for internships while working on Topol and Topol-M (most likely when working on Pioneer, but I didn’t touch on this topic in the conversation). So the “Bark” topic was closed not because of the high cost (the bulk of the work had already been completed), but because the main participant in the development of engines and the main contractor for their manufacture dropped out of the cooperation.
                  Unwillingly . The plant (PMZ) was looted in the first couple of years of independence. Its director (from the moment of its creation, he built it), on his birthday, already retired (a year after his retirement), came to his plant, saw what these barbarians did to him, got upset, returned home and died. On the same day .
                  The Ukrainian authorities closed the plant at the request of the Americans, although the plant itself would have been happy to receive an order from Russia.
                  And the director of the Pavlograd Chemical Plant, where the TT was manufactured and where the Molodtsev and Typhoon stages were equipped, immediately after the collapse of the Union, with all the documentation on the TT, on all technical processes, and possibly with some documentation on the Bark available to him ( and "Typhoon") went to France... And soon the TT SLBM program began there, which they struggled with for a long time, but to no avail. The French courted him for quite a long time, gave him gifts, planted some orders on “non-military topics”, so in 1992 he immediately retired and was like that.
                  Therefore, there were no prospects for Bark in Russia. .. And then Solomonov returned and proposed to recess the nozzles into the engine housing of his “Topol”, shorten it by one stage and make an SLBM with the characteristics of the “Topol”. (Votkinsk simply could not move other buildings) and... work began to boil. With all the bugs that only the Makeevites corrected.
                  But in Sarov they made new nuclear warheads for the Yars warhead, which in terms of specific power are much superior to the old Soviet and American nuclear warheads. So, in terms of strike capabilities with the new nuclear warheads, the Bulava is no worse than the old Trizub. If not even superior to it.
              3. fiv Rank
                fiv
                0
                15 May 2024 17: 09
                Quite right, MIT won a strange victory over Miass. And not needed by Russia. If not for this, there would be no dispute now.
      3. Petio Rank
        Petio
        +1
        14 May 2024 16: 28
        Yes. But it is heavy - 59 tons. French M51 too. The mace is light compared to them - 36 tons.
      4. Dirty Liar Rank
        Dirty Liar
        +3
        14 May 2024 16: 30
        Is Trident the one that falls out of the submarine and falls next to it? Oh yes - that's the argument.
      5. Sergey39 Rank
        Sergey39
        +8
        14 May 2024 16: 45
        Please tell us, how many Triden 2 D5 missiles does a salvo consist of and how many missiles did the Americans launch simultaneously in practice?
        1. Boa kaa Rank
          Boa kaa
          +1
          14 May 2024 20: 56
          Quote: Sergey39
          How many Triden 2 D5 missiles does a salvo consist of and how many missiles did the Americans launch at the same time in practice?

          May I interrupt you? The Yankees did not fire more than 4 in a salvo. But we also launched 4 pencils with Pins during the RK test. And in practice, the Yankees shoot a pair of Tr-2s. They think that this is enough.
      6. Saburov_Alexander53 Rank
        Saburov_Alexander53
        0
        16 May 2024 08: 45
        Andrey, I read the entire discussion below and understand that there are many patriotically minded guys on this forum who compensate with their jingoism for the lack of deep knowledge of the subject. And as soon as you spoke like that about our “Bulava”, accusations immediately began to fall.
        Maybe we should have started a discussion about the reasons for our lag in the production of solid fuels, when we were unable to make our own solid fuel with the required specifications. And when things started to work out first with the Topols on land. decided to continue with the naval "Bulava". And the desire to quickly make your own naval technical and technical transport outweighed all other arguments in favor of Makeev and his experience with underwater launch
        As far as I understand, that rush was due to the significant ease of operation of TTRs compared to ZhTRs, even when they learned to make them ampoule-type and not to drain the fuel from them every time after autonomy and combat service, removing missiles from submarines.
        I remember from my service on the submarine 629A pr. with R-21 on heptyl, what it cost and what dangers arose when reloading missiles from the boat to the base.
        And the first batches of solid fuel for our missiles began to be produced at a plant in the city of Shostka (Ukrainian SSR), which we soon lost, and it was not possible to quickly establish production at our factories. Very stringent requirements for uniform fuel burnout from the axis of the rocket’s cylinder to its aluminum body are required from this fuel. And if the burnout goes a little unevenly, then the body of the rocket will burn out ahead of it, before it reaches the estimated altitude and speed.
        .
    2. alystan Rank
      alystan
      0
      14 May 2024 17: 51
      They are trying so hard, but nothing good has come of it...
    3. The comment was deleted.
  3. rocket757 Rank
    rocket757
    +1
    14 May 2024 15: 43
    The mace is an argument... a serious, vigorous argument.
    1. Alex777 Rank
      Alex777
      +4
      14 May 2024 16: 43
      Quote: rocket757
      The mace is an argument... a serious, vigorous argument.

      Hmm... How many cruisers have already been built for it,
      and it was only put into service this year...
      1. Vladimir80 Rank
        Vladimir80
        -2
        14 May 2024 16: 53
        Hmm... How many cruisers have already been built for it,
        and it was only put into service this year...

        a beautiful report is more important than adoption!
        1. Alex777 Rank
          Alex777
          0
          14 May 2024 16: 54
          Quote: Vladimir80
          a beautiful report is more important than adoption!

          So I wondered if this was a reaction to Belousov’s statements? bully
        2. alystan Rank
          alystan
          +2
          14 May 2024 17: 53
          But for me this is more important:

          ... launches have been carried out since 2004, while Since 2013, all tests have been carried out as usual.
      2. Boa kaa Rank
        Boa kaa
        +1
        14 May 2024 21: 07
        Alexander! The R-30 entered service with the Navy in 2018! “In June 2018, the Bulava missile was adopted by the Russian Navy based on the results of successful tests.”
        Read the article more carefully. It talks about the adoption of the ARMY (I understand that the Strategic Missile Forces or the Aerospace Forces?) That is. this will be a “dry” product. Apparently, with a full set of “tsatseks”, it will plug the gap in the INF Treaty. We have experience in drying Calibers, Onyxes and Zircons. Apparently it’s “cheap and cheerful” and there’s no need to wrinkle your turnips!
        IMHO.
        1. Alex777 Rank
          Alex777
          0
          14 May 2024 21: 38
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Alexander! The R-30 entered service with the Navy in 2018!

          I thought so too. But here is the publication that sparked the discussion:
          14.05.2024 13:11
          Bulava missile sea ​​based adopted by the RF Armed Forces
          Alexey Rybin

          The sea-based Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile has been adopted by the Russian Armed Forces. TASS reported this General designer of the Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering Yuri Solomonov.

          https://rg.ru/2024/05/14/raketa-bulava-morskogo-bazirovaniia-priniata-na-vooruzhenie-vs-rf.html

          I am sufficiently in the know to distinguish between naval and some other basing.
          I know Yuri Solomonov within 1 handshake. )))
          If you say that everything was fine back in 2018, then I’m only glad.
          Otherwise, it’s a shame for the State. hi

          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Apparently, with a full set of “tsatseks”, it will plug the gap in the INF Treaty.

          The mace is not needed by land soldiers. Yars is what you need.
          1. Boa kaa Rank
            Boa kaa
            +1
            14 May 2024 22: 07
            Quote: Alex777
            The mace is not needed by land soldiers. Yars is what you need.

            Namesake, I know for sure that with missiles that are not accepted for service, no one will launch a boat into the sea at BS.
            And second. Before this, the Supreme Commander threatened the Yankees with the speedy adoption of medium-range ballistic missiles. And here is the following statement: the mace has been adopted by the RF Armed Forces. And what do you want me to think after that?
            1. Alex777 Rank
              Alex777
              0
              14 May 2024 22: 46
              Quote: BoA KAA
              Namesake, I know for sure that with missiles that are not accepted for service, no one will launch a boat into the sea at BS.

              drinks
              Yes, that's what I mean. I'm just glad.
              Although, it’s not for me to tell you how we can lie.

              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              And second. Before this, the Supreme Commander threatened the Yankees with the speedy adoption of medium-range ballistic missiles.

              We have developed the 15P159 Courier complex.
              http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-442.html
              He can do it at medium range too. Easily.
              According to rumors, work was stopped at the request of the “partners”.
              So let's resume it. It's good, but it can be improved. wink
              1. Alex777 Rank
                Alex777
                0
                14 May 2024 23: 00
                Quote: Alex777
                We have developed the 15P159 Courier complex.
                http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-442.html

                Eh... I confused the 15P159 Courier and the RS-26 Rubezh. hi
                1. Boa kaa Rank
                  Boa kaa
                  +1
                  14 May 2024 23: 14
                  Quote: Alex777
                  Eh... I confused the 15P159 Courier and the RS-26 Rubezh.

                  Thank God, I corrected my post! Otherwise, like a greyhound, I had already made a “stance” and was ready to correct it. laughing
                  1. Alex777 Rank
                    Alex777
                    +1
                    14 May 2024 23: 24
                    Yes, I wanted to delete it, but it’s on the site now
                    in the grossen family beak niht clack clack.

                    laughing
                    Did not have time.
  4. tralflot1832 Rank
    tralflot1832
    0
    14 May 2024 15: 50
    Biden: Houston, Houston we have problems. START 3, which is not beneficial for us, must die. Long live START 4, where Russia, China, India, North Korea will negotiate with the USA, France, England, Israel. Iran as an observer.
  5. Vladislav
    Vladislav
    -10
    14 May 2024 15: 54
    At the same time, the US Army is still in service with Minuteman missiles, which, according to regulations, should have ceased their service in 1999.


    How old are the Voivodes now and where is the guarantee that they will be able to take off and fulfill their combat mission?
    1. alexoff Rank
      alexoff
      +2
      14 May 2024 16: 10
      And we seem to be conducting test launches.
      1. Vladislav
        Vladislav
        -2
        14 May 2024 17: 22
        The last launch of Voevoda was in 2013 and three worms liked you for your feces.
        1. alexoff Rank
          alexoff
          -1
          14 May 2024 18: 06
          Dnepr flew in 2015. There are few of them left. And I haven’t heard of any problems with them. Or do you have your own information?
          By the way, why are you worried about missiles? We haven’t carried out nuclear tests for a very long time, maybe nothing has exploded for a long time?
          1. Vladislav
            Vladislav
            0
            14 May 2024 18: 36
            What does the R-36M UTTH have to do with it, if we are talking about the R-36M2?
            1. alexoff Rank
              alexoff
              -1
              14 May 2024 19: 11
              Of course, there is no connection at all, heaven and earth, everything is probably rotten and you are sure of it, or rather you. Do you have any facts on hand or are you in the mood to crow?
          2. Vladislav
            Vladislav
            -3
            14 May 2024 18: 38
            Quote from alexoff
            Dnepr flew in 2015. There are few of them left. And I haven’t heard of any problems with them. Or do you have your own information?
            By the way, why are you worried about missiles? We haven’t carried out nuclear tests for a very long time, maybe nothing has exploded for a long time?

            You don’t even know what non-nuclear explosive experiments are? Let's write some more stupidity.
            1. alexoff Rank
              alexoff
              -1
              14 May 2024 19: 09
              And these experiments are carried out and provide a 100% guarantee that the warheads will fire under real combat conditions?
    2. U-58 Rank
      U-58
      0
      14 May 2024 16: 11
      I answer: they are many years old.
      There are guarantees and they are technically quite justified.
      Well, Sarmat is on the way. And, you know, it’s completely fresh, piping hot.
      Regarding the implementation of combat missions, one can refer to American assessments from the late 70s.
      They estimated (very scientifically) that in a large-scale conflict with the use of heavy ICBMs, up to 25% of American missiles would NOT complete their combat mission.
      And of course, the engines will not start, they will fail (explode) at OUT, the guidance will go wrong (they will miss), the AP will not explode.
      This was the assessment.
      We can extrapolate their calculations to our technology.
      Source: Foreign Military Review magazine.
      1. Alex777 Rank
        Alex777
        +2
        14 May 2024 16: 47
        Quote: U-58
        We can extrapolate their calculations to our technology.

        It is forbidden. We have undergone rearmament.
        About 25% - the States underestimated. It's even worse.
    3. Piramidon Rank
      Piramidon
      +2
      14 May 2024 16: 11
      Quote: Vladislav
      How old are the Voivodes now and where is the guarantee that they will be able to take off and fulfill their combat mission?

      This is why they are launched periodically.
      1. Vladislav
        Vladislav
        -2
        14 May 2024 17: 23
        In what year was the last launch of the Voevoda?
    4. zombirusrev Rank
      zombirusrev
      -1
      14 May 2024 16: 16
      They can...they can do everything. If it weren’t for the collapse of the USSR, Yuzhmash would still be riveting them... And those whose deadlines are approaching are used as launch vehicles.
    5. Sergey39 Rank
      Sergey39
      +1
      14 May 2024 16: 54
      In 2023, the Russian Federation adopted the Sarmat missile into service and is putting it on duty. This is a substitute for "Voevoda". If I'm not mistaken, they are the same mine. With the same weight and dimensions.
      “Voevoda” / “Sarmat” shoots further (11000-16000 km/18000 km) and the weight of the warhead is greater (8800 kg/10000 kg).
      1. Vladislav
        Vladislav
        -7
        14 May 2024 17: 23
        After one successful launch, was it adopted into service?
  6. KCA Rank
    KCA
    +5
    14 May 2024 15: 57
    What does Minuteman have to do with SLBMs? They should have written about Trident 2 then, it’s more recent, from 1990
  7. Ross xnumx Rank
    Ross xnumx
    +1
    14 May 2024 15: 58
    The Russian Armed Forces adopted the Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile.

    I thought it was deja vu... But no, I was not mistaken...
    Adopted June 2018 according to other data May 7, 2024
    1. alexoff Rank
      alexoff
      +1
      14 May 2024 16: 45
      In the same article, in the comparative characteristics, 2012 is generally indicated
    2. Sergey39 Rank
      Sergey39
      +2
      14 May 2024 17: 00
      Ours is dark, it was reported that the missile was put into service in 2018. Perhaps they hid the fact that they accepted it for trial operation. I was surprised by today's news. And, after all, she was taught to fly for a long time. There were many unsuccessful launches.
      1. Boa kaa Rank
        Boa kaa
        0
        14 May 2024 22: 34
        Quote: Sergey39
        There were many unsuccessful launches.

        Launch success = 77%. Despite the fact that the R-29RM had a 74% success rate at the time it was put into service.
  8. BIABIA Rank
    BIABIA
    +3
    14 May 2024 16: 01
    At the same time, the US Army still has Minuteman missiles in service.

    What do ground-based missiles and Bulava have to do with it? Compare with Trident 2.
    Minuteman - Voivode or new Sarmatian.
  9. ASM Rank
    ASM
    0
    14 May 2024 16: 01
    Anything that leads to an increase in our combat readiness is good. The main thing is that “the suit fits” and the response to the threat is immediate. But, unfortunately, this does not depend in any way on the military.
  10. Yura Rank
    Yura
    0
    14 May 2024 16: 02
    The United States dropped a 15 kiloton bomb on Hiroshima, each missile 100 Hiroshima Mace. It’s hard to even imagine such a thing.
    1. easy Rank
      easy
      0
      14 May 2024 16: 30
      Yuri, you were a little mistaken. Each warhead has 10 Hiroshimas, and there are ten of them in each missile. And there are 16 missiles. That's the arithmetic, but it's really scary to think about.
    2. Sergey39 Rank
      Sergey39
      -2
      14 May 2024 17: 04
      10 -15 multiple warheads. With 10 warheads, each 750 kt.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. JD1979 Rank
        JD1979
        +2
        14 May 2024 18: 39
        Where do such fantasies come from? 6 blocks of 150 kt each, 10 blocks seem to be also indicated, but it is not clear whether the installation option has been implemented or not.
  11. alexoff Rank
    alexoff
    +2
    14 May 2024 16: 09
    I thought it had already been adopted for service about 10 years ago, what did the Boreans sail with then?
    1. Rus_80 Rank
      Rus_80
      +4
      14 May 2024 16: 12
      They didn't swim, they walked. But to be honest, I also thought that the Mace had already been accepted a long time ago
      1. alexoff Rank
        alexoff
        -4
        14 May 2024 16: 28
        If without a mace, then they swam. If they carried a mace that was not accepted for service, then they went. Apparently like with Mavics - according to the state there is no, but in fact there is
    2. navycat777 Rank
      navycat777
      +1
      14 May 2024 16: 15
      The first Borey was launched in 2007. I wonder what it was loaded with instead of the Mace? bully
      1. mark1 Rank
        mark1
        +4
        14 May 2024 17: 21
        Quote from: navycat777
        I wonder what it was loaded with instead of the Mace?

        When it entered service it was loaded... - tram pum pam! - With a mace!
        You won’t believe it - the Mace was on the database without being put into service!
        And this is not the only case when equipment was used in the Armed Forces for decades without being officially adopted into service.
        1. navycat777 Rank
          navycat777
          -2
          14 May 2024 17: 27
          You cannot operate equipment that has not been adopted for service. Perhaps Boreas simply loved the ocean and wanted to swim empty laughing
          1. mark1 Rank
            mark1
            +1
            14 May 2024 17: 31
            Quote from: navycat777
            You cannot operate equipment that has not been adopted for service.

            It’s not good - yes, but it’s unlikely that it’s impossible, the status just changes.
            R-27K, R-31 - this is only for naval ballistic missiles
            1. navycat777 Rank
              navycat777
              0
              14 May 2024 17: 34
              Well, yes, either the crew will die during the launch of the rocket, or it will still reach the target. If you consider that there are 16 missiles, then the crew may be kamikazes. soldier
              1. navycat777 Rank
                navycat777
                0
                14 May 2024 19: 39
                If a weapon model during testing does not meet all the parameters of the technical specifications, then it cannot be accepted for service, but if it is really necessary, it is accepted under the responsibility of a person with authority. Thus, if the Mace fails to exit the shaft during an underwater launch, then this character will be responsible for this.
          2. Piramidon Rank
            Piramidon
            -1
            14 May 2024 19: 22
            Quote from: navycat777
            You cannot operate equipment that has not been adopted for service.

            If you press, then anything is possible. They put into production and operated equipment that had not even fully passed the tests.
          3. bk0010 Rank
            bk0010
            +1
            14 May 2024 19: 23
            Quote from: navycat777
            You cannot operate equipment that has not been adopted for service.
            Can. In the USSR, for example, one interceptor was not accepted into service, but was used with all its might.
    3. Sergey39 Rank
      Sergey39
      +1
      14 May 2024 17: 05
      Boreas carry the "Mace". Yes, there was a maximum salvo of 4 missiles.
      The boats were ready and waiting for the rocket until 2012.
    4. Adrey Rank
      Adrey
      0
      14 May 2024 18: 16
      Quote from alexoff
      I thought it had already been adopted for service about 10 years ago, what did the Boreans sail with then?

      With Pins? Not?.. laughing
  12. Victor19 Rank
    Victor19
    +2
    14 May 2024 16: 11
    Not quite clear! Boreas have been built for this rocket for a long time, and for a long time. And she’s been in the Navy for a long time. request
  13. Buyan Rank
    Buyan
    +1
    14 May 2024 16: 13
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: U-58
    They will have to fork out money to counter our actions

    I’m sorry, but so far the Trident 2 D5 covers the mace like a bull covers a sheep... In terms of solid fuel missiles, we are catching up

    Can you explain? Only, please, without references to Wikipedia and other resources
    1. zombirusrev Rank
      zombirusrev
      0
      14 May 2024 16: 20
      His job is to find fault with everything we do..
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      +7
      14 May 2024 16: 23
      In short, ICBMs can fly on liquid or solid fuel. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. For a long time, for various reasons, we relied on liquid-propellant rockets; they are excellent. Take the same "Sineva", for example. But they started working on solid fuels quite recently, at the very end of the USSR and then the Russian Federation
      At the same time, the Americans have been going for solid-fuel rockets for a very long time, even the Poseidon, which they started making in 1963 as a solid-fuel rocket. Well, naturally, they bypassed us here. Therefore, Poseidon has a better range (11300 km versus 9800) and greater throw weight (2800 kg versus 1150) than the Bulava.
      1. alexoff Rank
        alexoff
        +1
        14 May 2024 16: 41
        Trident and weighs twice as much. And the maximum range is not for maximum load. And we don’t really need further than Florida
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          0
          14 May 2024 17: 50
          Quote from alexoff
          And the maximum range is not for maximum load.

          As with us
      2. Sergey39 Rank
        Sergey39
        +1
        14 May 2024 17: 09
        Andrey, tell us about the number of missiles in a salvo of Americans and Us, and when did the Americans and how many missiles were they actually firing?
        Yes, check the distance to the USA and Europe from the patrol areas of our SSBNs.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          +1
          14 May 2024 19: 07
          Quote: Sergey39
          Andrey, tell us about the number of missiles the Americans have in a salvo

          About the same thing - there will probably be 4-5 pieces
          Quote: Sergey39
          when did the Americans conduct practical firing and how many missiles?

          They fired Tridents alone more than 130 times after they were put into service. Mostly single, but there were also salvos of 4 missiles
          Quote: Sergey39
          Yes, check the distance to the USA and Europe

          Within 7500 km to the USA, that is, the Bulava does not reach fully loaded. But what you are asking about Europe is completely impossible to say.
      3. Boa kaa Rank
        Boa kaa
        0
        14 May 2024 23: 30
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Therefore, Poseidon has a better range (11300 km versus 9800) and greater throw weight (2800 kg versus 1150) than the Bulava.

        Andrey, this is a reservation, not POSEIDON, but Tr-2! stop
        IBo Poseidon S-3 had D = 3000 miles (5600 km) when loaded with 6 BBs of the W68 type, each with a capacity of 50 kt. Yes
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          0
          15 May 2024 09: 21
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Andrey, this is a reservation, not POSEIDON, but Tr-2!

          Blame, Trident of course
  14. Stas1973 Rank
    Stas1973
    +3
    14 May 2024 16: 40
    And Sineva was thrown into the trash. Although in most respects it is better than the Bulava, which has been sawing for 26 years. And I’m not sure they finished it. About hypersonic satellites for the Bulava - I think it’s a joke for journalists.
    1. Sergey39 Rank
      Sergey39
      +2
      14 May 2024 17: 15
      A specific boat design is built for each rocket. 667 BDRM SSBNs were built for Sineva. Alas, time moves forward and new technologies appear.
    2. Boa kaa Rank
      Boa kaa
      0
      14 May 2024 23: 48
      Quote: Stas1973
      And Sineva was thrown into the trash. Although in most respects it is better than the Bulava, which has been sawing for 26 years. And I’m not sure they finished it. About hypersonic satellites for the Bulava - I think it’s a joke for journalists.
      Everything has its end, its beginning. (c)
      The mace honestly served its allotted time. But when the Yankees deployed their MMD in the flight directions of the R-29RMU2, it became “unpromising.” A very long OUT and a bright torch did not leave her a chance near Arly with Aegis on board. Pr S-3 shoots down the ballistic missile before 65 seconds of acceleration. The R-30 had an OUT 4 times shorter than Sineva. In addition, she could maneuver on the OUT, and her area for breeding BBs was 4 times larger, which means that at the end of the OUT she could send them into autonomous flight without reaching apogee... This is all called technical progress and methods overcoming MMD.
      Quote: Stas1973
      About hypersonic satellites for the Bulava - I think it’s a joke for journalists.

      This is bullshit. The Avangard is quite a “respectable” vehicle, which simply will not fit under the cap of the AP warhead fairing of the R-30 missile.
  15. goscha Rank
    goscha
    -2
    14 May 2024 16: 42
    That is, a full salvo of one carrier with 160 warheads... ,,Good luck to the overseas dogs in catching hypersonic fleas lol , well, if, God forbid, of course...
    1. Sergey39 Rank
      Sergey39
      +6
      14 May 2024 17: 20
      In practice, there was, only once, a full salvo from an SSBN, and that was experimental. We called this operation “Behemoth” and they were able to fire a salvo the second time. Oh, so 2-4 missiles at the same time. The rocket is launched from a certain depth and with a sharp change in displacement, it is difficult to keep it at a given depth.
  16. Vladimir80 Rank
    Vladimir80
    0
    14 May 2024 16: 50
    Quote: Alex777
    and it was only put into service this year...

    This surprised me extremely unpleasantly, because more than 10 years have passed since they reported on successful tests.... so now believe all this “news on TV” about Sarmatians and zircons... maybe they don’t exist at all???
  17. Knell wardenheart Rank
    Knell wardenheart
    +5
    14 May 2024 17: 08
    When I read the title, I couldn't believe my eyes. This product was tested when I was still going to school, and only now, after a quarter of a century, they were honored. To be honest, I thought that it had been in service for a long time..
    1. Egg Rank
      Egg
      0
      14 May 2024 17: 24
      You missed one important point, “Bulava” is “Bulava” but:
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      The rocket has up to ten hypersonic maneuvering individually targeted nuclear warheads with a capacity of 100-150 kilotons each.
      1. navycat777 Rank
        navycat777
        +3
        14 May 2024 17: 43
        The Bulava has a throw weight of 1100 kg. You are giving data on another rocket..
  18. Sofievka Rank
    Sofievka
    +1
    14 May 2024 17: 29
    What difference will it make to me, what letters will Trident show up in Crimea with, what’s new since the times of the USSR? They are for us, we are for them, somehow they want to live, not even me alone, a serious and strict warning about further escalation is needed, I still think that my fate and that of my family is in good hands. And Sineva with Bulava, the Voivodes, I hope, are standing in the mines and holding a likely enemy
  19. Buskan
    Buskan
    +3
    14 May 2024 17: 31
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    Yes, it doesn’t really cover ours.

    Yes, quite a lot :)
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    and in terms of destructive power they are almost equal.

    The range and throwing weight of the Maces are inferior, but this is no joke
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    The fashion for solid-fuel rockets leads to the fact that the characteristics of rocket engines degrade, which provokes incidents like 21.02.2024.

    Not certainly in that way. As I already wrote below
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In short, ICBMs can fly on liquid or solid fuel. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.

    Of course, one of the disadvantages of solid fuel rockets is their shorter service life. But there are also advantages.
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    And with Sineva, Trident 2 is generally on par.

    That's why I wrote below
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    For a long time, for various reasons, we relied on liquid-propellant rockets; they are excellent. Take the same "Sineva", for example.

    And that she is parity with Trident, I don’t argue with that at all. Unlike Bulava, unfortunately

    Hello! Many visitors to this site are not interested in the truth. These people are dense in the medieval way.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      +1
      15 May 2024 09: 26
      Quote: Buskan
      Many visitors to this site are not interested in the truth.

      Alas, that's how it is
  20. 501 Legion Rank
    501 Legion
    -2
    14 May 2024 17: 54
    a hundred years ago, this rocket has long been built with launch vehicles for it; there have already been so many launches! and adopted it and only now they are making news out of it
    1. Alexander Sharapov Rank
      Alexander Sharapov
      0
      14 May 2024 18: 08
      Sergei Surovikin in the Kremlin.

      The topic of the meeting, its nature, and duration are unknown.

      Maybe he’s talking about the successes of the Russian military-industrial complex in Algeria.
  21. Buyan Rank
    Buyan
    0
    14 May 2024 18: 22
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In short, ICBMs can fly on liquid or solid fuel. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. For a long time, for various reasons, we relied on liquid-propellant rockets; they are excellent. Take the same "Sineva", for example. But they started working on solid fuels quite recently, at the very end of the USSR and then the Russian Federation
    At the same time, the Americans have been going for solid-fuel rockets for a very long time, even the Poseidon, which they started making in 1963 as a solid-fuel rocket. Well, naturally, they bypassed us here. Therefore, Poseidon has a better range (11300 km versus 9800) and greater throw weight (2800 kg versus 1150) than the Bulava.

    Thank you
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      0
      15 May 2024 09: 23
      My pleasure. You're welcome! Just pay attention to my typo
      Quote from Buyan
      At the same time, the Americans have been going for solid-fuel rockets for a very long time, even the Poseidon, which they started making in 1963 as a solid-fuel rocket.

      It's right
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Therefore, Poseidon has a better range (11300 km versus 9800) and greater throw weight (2800 kg versus 1150) than the Bulava.

      But here I meant Trident 2
  22. grandson of Perun Rank
    grandson of Perun
    +2
    14 May 2024 18: 27
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: U-58
    They will have to fork out money to counter our actions

    I’m sorry, but so far the Trident 2 D5 covers the mace like a bull covers a sheep... In terms of solid fuel missiles, we are catching up

    I understand the admiration for the West, but what does “covers” mean?
    The range is comparable, the throwing weight is approximately the same.
    And if you consider that Trident’s warheads are not hypersonic maneuvering units at all...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      0
      14 May 2024 21: 03
      Quote: Perun's grandson
      The range is comparable,

      9300 is in no way comparable to 11.
      Quote: Perun's grandson
      the throwing weight is approximately the same.

      1150=2800? What did you do in mathematics?
      Quote: Perun's grandson
      And if you consider that Trident’s warheads are not hypersonic maneuvering units at all...

      If you are talking about “Avangard”, then you can’t put it on the Bulava.
  23. Dva parovoza Rank
    Dva parovoza
    +2
    14 May 2024 18: 30
    Strange news, because the Bulava missile, based on the results of successful tests, was adopted by the Russian Navy back in June 2018. Either this is the adoption of the Bulava complex (the missile and the complex are slightly different things), or a new modification? Perhaps another difference lies in the fact that in 2018 the “receiver” for service was the Russian Navy, and in the current RF Armed Forces? But "Bulava" is a "sea-based" product.
    Very interesting, but nothing is clear. Maybe someone knows all these subtleties and the difference between acceptance in 2018 and 2024? And then, figuratively speaking: “either I’m a dumbass, or the skis don’t work?”
  24. Sergey3 Rank
    Sergey3
    0
    14 May 2024 18: 51
    How about trying a new product? There is a training ground with real targets. There, even if you don’t put a core filling, but just put a cobblestone, then the pit will still turn out very good!
  25. Strannik96 Rank
    Strannik96
    +1
    14 May 2024 20: 43
    [quote=Andrey from Chelyabinsk][quote=mark1]it turns out 7800 km in a straight line[/quote]
    In full body kit
    . [/ Quote]
    (heavy sigh) Our Mace in full combat mode probably flies about 6500 kilometers in a straight line:))))) Only warheads and decoys are carried by weight 2,4 times less than Trident[/quote]
    The missile is expected to carry 10 MIRV warheads, with a yield of 100-160 kT, to a maximum distance of 8,300 km
    Where does the data about 6500 come from when the comrades write 8300? and so on, i.e. your info doesn't add up. And there is no need to sigh heavily about this
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      0
      15 May 2024 09: 23
      Quote: Strannik96
      The missile is expected to carry 10 MIRV warheads, with a yield of 100-160 kT, to a maximum distance of 8,300 km

      The data is generally a complete mess. Unlucky Mace 10 Warheads
  26. Andrei from Chelyabinsk Rank
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    0
    15 May 2024 09: 22
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    At the same time, the Americans have long gone for solid fuel rockets, even Poseidon, which they started making in 1963, is already solid fuel. Well, naturally, they bypassed us here. That's why Poseidon has a better range (11300 km versus 9800) and greater throw weight (2800 kg versus 1150) than the Bulava.

    In the first case it was about Poseidon, but in the second case it was about Trident
  27. grandson of Perun Rank
    grandson of Perun
    +1
    15 May 2024 11: 05
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    9300 is in no way comparable to 11.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    1150 = 2800?
    At Trident maximum range 11300 km and maximum throw weight 2800 kg.
    At the same time, with maximum with a throwable weight the range is only 7800 km. Which is less than 9300 km at Bulava.
    And this despite the fact that the Mace is more compact and lighter. Speaking of energy efficiency.
    Therefore, a counter question: what did you have in mathematics?
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    If you are talking about “Avangard”, then you can’t put it on the Bulava.
    In the news about the maneuvering blocks of the Mace, there is not a word about the Vanguard.
  28. grandson of Perun Rank
    grandson of Perun
    0
    15 May 2024 11: 12
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The data is generally a complete mess. Unlucky Mace 10 Warheads
    Lucky from 6 to 10 BB.
    I wonder why you turn yourself inside out so much, even stooping to lies, in order to “prove” that supposedly “Russians are backward and don’t know how to do anything”...