What will the return of nuclear weapons give the Russian fleet


The Russian Navy can radically increase its combat capability if tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) are returned to it. This proposal was made a few days ago by the honorary scientific director of the Sarov Nuclear Center, Academician Radiy Ilkaev. Are there any pitfalls that this interesting initiative might stumble upon?


"Vigorous loaf"


Dear Radiy Ivanovich said that on the issue of the need to return tactical nuclear weapons to the arsenal of the Russian Navy, he reached a complete understanding with the former Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Vladimir Vysotsky at the opening ceremony of the monument to this admiral, who passed away last year:

We are a great maritime power and must have an appropriate fleet for protection. But to build such a fleet, you need 100 years, it is very expensive. In the meantime, it is necessary to protect by available means - to return tactical nuclear weapons, they are also in warehouses.

And you can't argue. After the collapse of the USSR, the once huge and powerful navy began to decline rapidly, the ships were either sent for scrap or sold for pennies abroad. The main shipbuilding center of the former Soviet Union remained in Nikolaev behind Kyiv. Domestic shipbuilders have lost many competencies, in particular, in the construction of large-capacity ships, military and civil. The break in industrial cooperation with Ukraine was a heavy blow for the Russian shipbuilding industry.

We have only a few warships of the 1st rank left afloat for the main fleets - the Northern, Pacific and Black Sea, whose average age is around 40 years. Against this background, the quite successful project of the 22350 frigate serves as a kind of consolation, but due to a whole range of problems in the industry, the pace of their launching remains unsatisfactory. Whatever one may say, Russia cannot quickly restore the strength of the Russian Navy on its own. At the same time, the statements of the Deputy General Director of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) for military shipbuilding, Vladimir Korolev, that the order of acutely scarce warships abroad, in friendly countries (China), seem rather controversial are not an effective solution to the problem.

In this context, the proposal to return tactical nuclear weapons to the fleet seems to be a completely justified measure. At one time, we also had nuclear versions of anti-ship missiles such as Vulkan, Bazalt and Granit, and nuclear torpedoes, and bottom nuclear landmines, and megaton-class depth bombs, and mines, and even atomic artillery shells. All this was taken out of service as a result of the so-called gentlemen's agreement between Secretary General Gorbachev and US President George W. Bush. Now only Russian SSBNs carry strategic nuclear weapons, to which 40% of the strike power of the Russian "nuclear triad" is tied. Obviously, Mikhail Sergeevich could not do anything good for his country, so his “legacy” once again needs to be revised. However, everything is not as simple as we would like.

Legally, there will be no problems with this, since we have no documented agreement with the Americans. There is only their word of honor and Gorbachev's. Difficulties may arise only with the implementation technical side.

More than 1991 years have passed since the conclusion of the "gentleman's agreement" in 30. Tactical nuclear warheads and their carriers removed from warships were sent to warehouses, and most of them have already been eliminated. Neither Russia nor the United States has sea-based tactical nuclear weapons in combat-ready form. However, if there is political At will, existing sea-based anti-ship and cruise missiles can be quickly equipped with a special warhead. Equipped with a nuclear warhead, for example, the hypersonic Zircon will be a very serious argument.

The problem will be only with the actual use of tactical nuclear weapons by the fleet. Hitting a stationary target like a military airfield is easy. It is difficult to find a moving and maneuverable target in the oceans and accurately aim at it, and then also correct an already fired missile during the flight. He spoke about this in an interview with the publication "Sight" Russian military expert, researcher at the Institute of World economics and International Relations (IMEMO) RAS Ilya Kramnik:

The main problem of the Russian fleet is not strike power. We are fine with this. There are difficulties in the means of reconnaissance and target designation. It's easy for us to destroy a target when we know where it is. But we have a hard time finding it. Before asking what the presence of nuclear weapons in the ocean will give us, I would first ask what target designation we will use them for.

The Liana satellite system, which is designed to fulfill such purposes, has not yet been formed. At the same time, one should not forget that military satellites will be priority targets for enemy anti-satellite missiles in the event of the start of real hostilities. To improve security, the Ministry of Defense is launching spacecraft of the Liana network to a height of 800-900 kilometers. Alas, even such a high orbit is not a salvation.

So, back in 2007, China successfully shot down its old meteorological satellite, which was at an altitude of 850 kilometers. The Americans were the first to create their own anti-satellite missiles. This spring, US Vice President Kamala Harris announced that the United States will no longer test direct ascent anti-satellite weapons. It seemed like a victory, but no.

The Pentagon already has several X-37B unmanned spacecraft that can stay in orbit for a long time and easily turn into carriers of anti-satellite weapons. According to some reports, the flight altitude of the X-37B mini-shuttle can reach 1064 kilometers. In other words, if desired, the United States can quickly "blind" the Russian Navy, depriving it of the ability to carry out target designation of missiles with both conventional and nuclear warheads. Unfortunately, it is impossible to rely solely on our small satellite constellation, the fleet Need their carrier-based aircraft and AWACS drones.

Nevertheless, even now, the return of tactical nuclear weapons will dramatically increase the combat capability of the Russian Navy. In particular, depth charges and torpedoes with a nuclear warhead are needed, which will increase anti-submarine warfare capabilities against the US Navy and NATO countries.
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 22 August 2022 16: 39
    0
    Whatever one may say, Russia cannot quickly restore the strength of the Russian Navy on its own.

    If Nikolaev enters Russia, then you can restore it yourself.
    And why does the fleet need nuclear missiles if there is no order to use them? Here, even an order is not given to undermine strategic Ukrainian bridges. The Ukrainians themselves blow them up as they retreat.
    1. k7k8 Online k7k8
      k7k8 (vic) 22 August 2022 17: 35
      +1
      Quote: Bulanov
      If Nikolaev enters Russia, then you can restore it yourself

      This issue has been discussed recently. As knowledgeable people say, there are no shipbuilders or material resources left in Nikolaev. Shipyards will not have to be restored, but created practically anew, and it will be strained with personnel.
  2. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 August 2022 16: 54
    0
    Quote: Bulanov
    And why does the fleet need nuclear missiles if there is no order to use them?

    Very good, right question!
    In Asia they say: What is the value of the sharpest sword in the hands of a coward?
  3. k7k8 Online k7k8
    k7k8 (vic) 22 August 2022 17: 28
    0
    There are difficulties in the means of reconnaissance and target designation

    As the war in Ukraine showed, in addition to these difficulties, there is another and no less important one - the lack of effective air defense / missile defense in the fleet. Ukraine, which does not have a large and medium-sized fleet at all, was able to destroy several ships of the KChF, including the flagship.

    Z.Y. For school apologists for nuclear weapons, dividing it into tactical and strategic EXCLUSIVELY in terms of charge power. The author clearly indicated in his article that the Navy's weapons included

    megaton class depth bombs

    as a tactical nuclear weapon.
    1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 August 2022 17: 32
      -1
      As the war in Ukraine showed, in addition to these difficulties, there is another and no less important one - the lack of effective air defense / missile defense in the fleet. Ukraine, which does not have a large and medium-sized fleet at all, was able to destroy several ships of the KChF, including the flagship.

      All the Moremans and adequate military experts have been writing about this for years.
  4. prior Offline prior
    prior (Vlad) 22 August 2022 18: 13
    +3
    It seems to me that in the third world war, large warships will be fairly easy targets. There are many things prepared for them.
    The death of the Black Sea flagship leads to this conclusion.
    What would change if it had tactical nuclear weapons on board?
    But if we had BZHRK with non-nuclear warheads weighing 10-20 tons, it would help a lot.
    Limit the range to several thousand kilometers, and by reducing the amount of fuel, increase the weight of the warhead.
    Such a train drove up to the Bryansk forest, made a couple of launches ....... and the Lvov tunnel, through which NATO weapons are being transported from Poland, NO.
    And there is no radioactive contamination.
    It is necessary to demolish the bridge across ...., one launch and there is no bridge.
    And the train has already left by rail calmly somewhere beyond the Urals to recharge.
    It is pointless to send an aircraft with a multi-ton bomb far beyond the front line, with the enemy's air defense, in fact, to send to death.
    For a conflict like NWO, the very thing in defense can come in handy.
    It is also obvious that it is necessary to significantly increase the number of missiles on air defense systems of the TOR-2M and Pantsir types in order to intercept salvo strikes of the Smerch, Grad, Uragan, Himars MLRS.
    1. k7k8 Online k7k8
      k7k8 (vic) 22 August 2022 18: 21
      +4
      You will probably be surprised, but there was such a complex (though not BZHRK). It's called "Temp".
      But about the load of 10 ... 20 tons - you got excited wink And the tunnels are not so easy to fill up. They are built in monolithic rock and can withstand a nuclear explosion (and even more so, an ordinary one). Unless the entrance collapses, but it is not so difficult to clear it. The method of destroying the tunnel in the rock has not yet been invented.
      1. GIS Offline GIS
        GIS (Ildus) 23 August 2022 10: 02
        0
        only if you blow up in the tunnel itself, causing a collapse inside ...
        1. k7k8 Online k7k8
          k7k8 (vic) 23 August 2022 20: 55
          0
          Even at "Caliber" and "Iskander" KVO will not allow you to get directly into the entrance. And there you also have to fly through the tunnel itself from half a kilometer. What is shown in blockbusters and films about the salvation of mankind and the Earth is nothing more than fairy tales.
  5. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 22 August 2022 18: 22
    0
    According to the head of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Patrushev, NATO is preparing for a full-scale war with the Russian Federation .. So the only question is the technical condition of these warheads with nuclear weapons and the timing of installation on ships.
  6. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
    Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 18: 50
    0
    The main shipbuilding center of the former Soviet Union remained in Nikolaev behind Kyiv.

    Nikolaev - the "main shipbuilding center" of the USSR!?
    Hmm ...

    Author!
    And what, in Nikolaev they built nuclear submarine missile carriers?
    Or were there no shipyards in Leningrad?
    And so on: from the North to the Far East - did they "build" scows to fill them with mullet?
    1. k7k8 Online k7k8
      k7k8 (vic) 22 August 2022 19: 08
      -1
      Tell me, please, where were the large-tonnage surface ships built? Where were our aircraft carriers built?
      1. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
        Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 19: 24
        0
        Dear k7k8 (vic)!

        For example, in the USSR, 18 tankers of the series were built at the Baltic Shipyard:
        length - 162 meters, width 21 meters, draft 8 meters, carrying capacity 5 tons.
        Some of the ships were not exported.
        And so on ...

        As for aircraft carriers...
        And what, in Russia there is nowhere and no one to build them?
        Are you, like the author, sure of this?
        The question is, are they needed...
        1. k7k8 Online k7k8
          k7k8 (vic) 22 August 2022 21: 40
          -1
          Quote: Krapilin
          18 series tankers

          Don't compare a slurry tub to a high-tech cruiser

          Quote: Krapilin
          aircraft carriers...
          And what, in Russia there is nowhere and no one to build them?

          Nowhere and no one
          The issue of the need to build, in particular, aircraft carriers, was not raised here. And I do not intend to repeat my opinion on each request of each krapilin. If interested, you can look in the archive (it is publicly available). I hope your religion allows you to do this?
          1. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
            Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 21: 47
            +3
            Dear k7k8 (vic)!

            Firstly, where nuclear icebreakers are being built, an aircraft carrier will also be quietly built - without any doubt.
            There would be an order...

            Secondly, if you are not interested in Krapilin's opinion, then why are you addressing Krapilin in such a "nervous manner"?
            Check out valerian...
        2. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 23 August 2022 07: 35
          -3
          As for aircraft carriers...
          And what, in Russia there is nowhere and no one to build them?
          Are you, like the author, sure of this?
          The question is, are they needed...

          I didn’t write about it directly in the article, but the logic is exactly that. Without satellites, the fleet will simply go blind, and all our wonderful missiles will have nothing to aim at. At least mobile and maneuverable.
        3. Vladimir1155 Offline Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 (Vladimir) 23 August 2022 22: 43
          0
          Quote: Krapilin
          As for aircraft carriers...
          And what, in Russia there is nowhere and no one to build them?
          Are you, like the author, sure of this?
          The question is, are they needed...

          obviously they are not needed, everyone knows this except for the last adherents of the aircraft carrier destructive totalitarian sect .... whom even the death of Moscow did not teach anything
      2. Navigator Offline Navigator
        Navigator (Andrei) 22 August 2022 20: 41
        +2
        Large-capacity ships were built in St. Petersburg (for example, destroyers of the Sarych type), in Kaliningrad at the Yantar plant (project 11-55 BOD) and in Nikolaev at the Black Sea shipyard (aircraft carriers were built there) and the plant named after 61 Communards (the cruiser Moscow was built there). Surface ships of the first rank were built in these three cities under the USSR.
  7. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
    Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 18: 53
    +1
    Unfortunately, it is impossible to rely solely on our small satellite constellation.

    Hmm ...
    To be an analyst is not to move bags.
    Author!
    And what about the essence, but with the facts confirming this statement - weakly?
    1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 23 August 2022 07: 34
      -3
      In essence and with the facts, the article was written. lol
  8. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
    Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 19: 09
    +3
    Domestic shipbuilders have lost many competencies, in particular, in the construction of large-capacity ships, military and civil.

    Author!

    Why lie so recklessly?

    Or is Russia not building Arctic icebreakers with a nuclear power plant?
    For example, the icebreaker "Arktika" = length 173,3 meters, width 34 meters, displacement 33,5 thousand tons. It is the head of the series.


    By the way, the author, where and by whom else have nuclear icebreakers been built over the past, well, for example, 15 years?
    1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 August 2022 20: 49
      -3
      Vitya, you are such a tiresome graphomaniac. bully I don’t even know who is worse, you or an expert analyst-predictor, scribbling 15-20 comments on one article.
      1. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
        Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 20: 59
        +3
        Dear Marzhetsky (Sergey)!

        Yes, where is Krapilin up to your "talents" with an assortment of "multi-colored" diplomas!

        Without any doubt, it doesn’t tire you personally from “scribble” to “scribble” called “analytical articles” to compose phantasmagoria about “perishing” Russia.
        Doubt about something else: is this a manifestation of your personal lack of education or, nevertheless, the methodical execution of an order "black" against Russia?
        1. The comment was deleted.
  9. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
    Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 19: 33
    +2
    In other words, if desired, the United States can quickly "blind" the Russian Navy, depriving it of the ability to carry out target designation of missiles with both conventional and nuclear warheads.

    Author!

    Why don't they "dazzle", so to speak, the Caliber cruise missiles, which constantly take off from ships and strike at the "coming out"?
    1. Navigator Offline Navigator
      Navigator (Andrei) 22 August 2022 20: 33
      +3
      calibers are fired at coastal fixed targets. The target will not go anywhere and will not run away. And when shooting at a sea target, everything is much more complicated. The target is moving, and target designation is indispensable. We have serious gaps in this. In the event of war, the first thing that will be done is the destruction of satellites, which we are sorely lacking.
      1. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
        Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 20: 49
        0
        Dear Navigator (Andrey)!

        And where does the target - sea or land - if the author says that they will "blind" any of our missiles?
        The question arises - why are they now "blind"?
        And if we have nothing to oppose against the "blinding" Americans, then why has the United States not yet "bombed" Russia in the Stone Age?
        1. Navigator Offline Navigator
          Navigator (Andrei) 22 August 2022 21: 40
          0
          At the moment, we can launch rockets and no one blinds us. No one shoots down satellites and our calibers fly to the right place with the help of the Glonass system. But this is when shooting at coastal targets. And today we are experiencing great difficulties with regard to sea targets, since the satellite constellation cannot provide target designation in full when firing at a sea target. In the event of a war with the NATO bloc, the satellites will be destroyed and the Glonas global positioning system for us and the GPS for the Americans will work with great difficulty, if they work at all. And then there will be blinding of missiles and the accuracy of guidance will be much worse than now.
          1. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
            Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 21: 56
            +1
            Dear Navigator (Andrey)!
            Firstly, you yourself write that the satellites will be destroyed: both theirs and ours.
            Well, what then will be the advantage of "them-over-us"?

            Secondly, surface sea targets in the event of a real nuclear war are not a priority at all: not for them, not for us.
            Because the coordinates, for example, of their megacities are already "driven" into strategic carriers of nuclear landmines in the so-called "dead hand" system.
            And then - for those who survive - everything is "the old fashioned way": axes, slings and bows.
            1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
              Marzhecki (Sergei) 23 August 2022 07: 30
              -3
              Dear Navigator (Andrey)!
              Firstly, you yourself write that the satellites will be destroyed: both theirs and ours.
              Well, what then will be the advantage of "them-over-us"?

              At least in the fact that the US Navy will have 11-12 AUGs with carrier-based AWACS aircraft to perform these tasks.
  10. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
    Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 20: 40
    +2
    Neither Russia nor the United States has sea-based tactical nuclear weapons in combat-ready form.

    Author!
    What does it mean for Russia - no?
    TNW consists of two parts: the nuclear bomb itself and its carrier.
    The sea-based Caliber cruise missile is capable of carrying a nuclear bomb over a distance of more than 2 kilometers.
    "Cling" and "bullet" - what's the problem?
    1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 August 2022 20: 51
      -4
      Andryusha the navigator has already explained to you. Yes, and the article seems to say what are the problems with "bullying" at a moving target.
      All these satellites of the Liana, which the anti-aircraft carrier sectarians swear at, will be knocked out in the first place. You will have to fight and give target designation with what is on the decks.
      1. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
        Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 21: 08
        0
        Dear Marzhetsky (Sergey)!

        The rocket doesn’t care what it is “polled” into and from where: even from a ship, even from an airplane, even from “the ground”. But you are making up a story about how any of our American missiles will be "blinded" by "one-two-three".

        However, who sells what: some with leeches, some with tales:

      2. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
        Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 21: 19
        0
        All these satellites of the Liana, which the anti-aircraft carrier sectarians swear at, will be knocked out in the first place.

        Dear Marzhetsky (Sergey)!

        Where did they tell you about this - directly to Langley or did they pass on the "thesis" through a liaison "from-that-yes"?
  11. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
    Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 21: 25
    +1
    At the same time, one should not forget that military satellites will be priority targets for enemy anti-satellite missiles in the event of the start of real hostilities.

    Author!

    And what, Russia does not have anti-satellite systems?
    That is, you want to convey to a wide Russian audience that the Russians will "shoot into space at enemy satellites with slingshots."
    Provocative provocation...
    1. k7k8 Online k7k8
      k7k8 (vic) 22 August 2022 21: 44
      -2
      Dear, could you ALL of your so-called. questions to state in one post and thesis? And then there are already too many of you.
      1. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
        Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 22: 05
        +2
        Dear k7k8 (vic)!

        And what, there are restrictions on the forums called "too much", especially when there is an exchange of views?
        This is first...

        Secondly: Krapilin DID NOT APPLY to you at all - from the word at all.
        Themselves "stuck" and themselves are "rude".
        Well, who then and for whom a lot?

        I dare not delay: all the best!
        1. k7k8 Online k7k8
          k7k8 (vic) 23 August 2022 09: 56
          -2
          Quote: Krapilin
          And what, there are restrictions on the forums called "too much", especially when there is an exchange of views?

          There is no need to change concepts. An exchange of opinions and a bazaar, as they say in Odessa, are two big differences. I hope it's so clear, you are our beloved demagogue.?
      2. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 23 August 2022 07: 32
        -3
        I see, I'm the only one tired of Marked. smile
  12. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
    Krapilin (Victor) 22 August 2022 21: 36
    +3
    The break in industrial cooperation with Ukraine was a heavy blow for the Russian shipbuilding industry.

    As information:

    The third serial nuclear Yakutia is being prepared for launching, the specialists of the Baltic Shipyard have completed the formation of the vessel's ice hull. This was reported by the press service of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC).
    The lead icebreaker of project 22220 Arktika, which gave the name to the entire series, is already operating in the North, as is the first production Sibir. The second serial "Ural" is preparing to enter the test. The fourth serial icebreaker of the Chukotka project was laid down at the end of 2020. It is planned that Yakutia will be handed over to the customer in 2024, and the fifth icebreaker of the series - in 2027...
  13. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 22 August 2022 21: 57
    0
    Maybe it can't ...
    but in this way he will give rise to a new round of the arms race ...
    And since the NATO Fleet is much larger, then ...
    Their military-industrial complex will joyfully applaud the new golden rain, it, yes, with nuclear weapons on planes, will further increase the "combat capability"
  14. Vladimir1155 Offline Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 (Vladimir) 22 August 2022 22: 49
    +1
    it is not clear why everyone is discussing surface ships .... although it is reliably known that they are ineffective, vulnerable and outdated conceptually, especially the larger ones, the death of the cruiser Moscow, which was called "the basis of the air defense of the group and the entire fleet" .... showed me I was right, I warned in advance and repeatedly like Cassandra, that it will be so, ....... the lot of surface ships is PLO and PMO near submarine bases! both old non-modernizable 1164 cruisers are obviously decommissioned in the near future, and Nakhimov (and possibly Peter) will just be an increase in air defense for a group of PLO frigates in the Barents Sea, and selling Kuzya to India to China, it obviously makes no sense to build new cruisers and destroyers, so if we are talking about the transfer of tactical nuclear weapons to the fleet, then we mean non-nuclear submarines and tactical nuclear submarines, this is reasonable
    1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 23 August 2022 07: 31
      -1
      Vladimir, answer my question, how will target designation be carried out for the Russian Navy in the event of the destruction of Russian military satellites?
      1. Vladimir1155 Offline Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 (Vladimir) 23 August 2022 08: 58
        +1
        SVO showed the weakness of target designation for medium-range tactical and strategic ones, so is it really possible to hit stationary targets plotted on a geographic map previously entered into the submarine’s computer, to hit nuclear weapons at moving targets? pointless and too wasteful ... moving targets are destroyed by satellite guidance, drones, AWACS guidance or from long-range aircraft, there is also a manual entry of coordinates, well, the entire satellite constellation will not be destroyed immediately and there are means of its quick recovery .. that's my opinion , although I am not an expert in target designation, but a mechanic and economist
  15. Vadim Sharygin Offline Vadim Sharygin
    Vadim Sharygin (Vadim Sharygin) 23 August 2022 16: 54
    +1
    If the political will and strategic thinking of the country's top leadership were available, it would be possible to strengthen the Navy by an order of magnitude during the remaining year for all of us. Purchase 10-30 ready-made ship hulls in China, install our launch platforms on them for launching missiles, urgently equip the icebreaker fleet with ready-made launchers, return to the fleet all nuclear warheads that still remain in storage points, equip several of our warships with them , which, with grief in half, were produced by the domestic, so-called, military-industrial complex over the thirty years of plundered Russian capitalism. These measures could, if not prevent the impending war with NATO, then at least make the death of our fleet in the conditions of bloody naval battles with a tenfold superior enemy - not so tragic and as productive as possible! The war with NATO will be completely different from our victorious half-year fidgeting across the steppes of Ukraine. It will be a real nightmare: hundreds of missile carriers, hundreds of fifth-generation aircraft, hundreds of strategic drones, thousands of sea, air and land-based cruise missiles, from all sides, all under the cover of avaks, with accurate satellite data. How many of our submarines will die at the piers at once? Almost all? If we count on the basis that, on average, one or two hang out at sea on combat duty, then the rest will be destroyed right at the quay walls. No threatened period. Quite simply, "June 22" take 2, Air defense systems, having fired exactly at a swarm of specially released drones distracting from the main one, will not succeed further, they will not have time to reload, the second, third and fourth wave of rocket outfits will be destroyed. Missiles will fly from distances inaccessible to destruction. Three or four "zircons", several "daggers", of course, will not make the weather, piece goods, piece result. That is, the question of the need to use nuclear weapons, including tactical ones, will become relevant within a few hours after the start of the missile attack on our key positions and carriers. But the use of strategic nuclear weapons against the enemy is, in fact, a sentence to the adversary, and ... to oneself. Strategic nuclear weapons are like the gesture of the referee in the ring announcing a knockout. Therefore, it is so important to have time to revive tactical nuclear weapons. According to various forecasts, a war with NATO may begin in three to six to eight months, its inevitability, due to the slow and small number of options for conducting a military defense, is now obvious to an increasing number of experts and ordinary people. The country has not yet been transferred to a military footing. There is no mobilization - people and consciousness. There is a lack of frankness and ingenuity in assessing the current situation - both for those who make decisions in our country and for those who believe that "from the taiga to the British seas, the Red Army is the strongest of all." We are gradually moving from the revelation of unresolved key tasks to the all-Russian retribution for naivety and show off, hatred. We need carriers - missiles and the brain!
  16. Vladimir1155 Offline Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 (Vladimir) 23 August 2022 22: 51
    0
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    All the Moremans and adequate military experts have been writing about this for years.

    it is obvious that I, as an adequate military expert, wrote that any surface ship is unable to provide satisfactory air defense about !!!! for example, the cruiser Moscow, previously called the basis of the fleet's air defense, did not cope with this task ... and then what do you want from a corvette and a frigate, and even more so from a useless bandura of an aircraft carrier with air defense worse than a frigate? obviously Kuzya is urgently sold, and all frigates and corvettes are closer to combat missions and away from coastal missiles, that is, the north and Kamchatka urgently!
    1. k7k8 Online k7k8
      k7k8 (vic) 24 August 2022 15: 46
      -1
      Quote: vladimir1155
      it is obvious that I am an adequate military expert

      What definitely does not threaten you is an untimely death due to excessive modesty laughing