Military Review

US missile defense tests: a new interceptor, the destruction of ICBMs and deployment prospects

84
One of the most important and ambitious American projects of recent years is the creation and deployment of a missile defense system capable of protecting the territory of the United States from possible nuclear-missile strikes by a potential enemy. Since the end of the nineties, various tests of antimissiles and other elements of a large complex have been conducted under this program. 30 on May held another check of interception tools, which became a landmark event in stories the entire program.


On Tuesday morning, the Pentagon reported on the current plans of the military department and the Missile Defense Agency, namely about preparing for the new tests of the existing system. For the first time in the history of the American missile defense, it was planned to test the operation of the antimissile during the interception of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Previously available defenses have repeatedly demonstrated their capabilities in the fight against ballistic missiles of different classes, but checks have not yet been made using ICBMs. For obvious reasons, the successful interception of such a goal was to be the most important achievement of the current program.


GBI, 2004 rocket launch. US Air Force Photo


According to official reports, the tests were carried out according to the already used program, which, nevertheless, was updated and corrected in accordance with the new tasks. The training objective was to start from the test site in the Marshall Islands. The tasks of detecting a target missile were assigned to the satellite constellation and ground-based means of controlling airspace and outer space. The interceptor was supposed to take off from Vandenberg Air Base (California). The missile defense agency, the US Northern Command and the 30 space wing were involved in the tests.

A few hours before the tests, a military spokesman, Captain Jeff Davis, revealed some of the features of a future inspection. In addition, in his speech he touched on the issue of the proliferation of missile weapons, which is the official reason for the construction of missile defense.

According to J. Davis, an increasing number of countries are adopting ballistic missiles, which raises concerns from the United States. New operators like this weaponsby developing their missile programs, they are increasing the number of deployed complexes, increasing their characteristics, and also introducing various means of overcoming protection systems. As a result, new ballistic missiles are becoming more sophisticated, accurate, and reliable.

The biggest concerns in the context of missile weapons from official Washington are Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It was noted that recent tests of North Korean missiles did not cause the American test. However, Pyongyang’s missile program is one of the main prerequisites for the creation and deployment of US anti-missile systems. Like the DPRK, Iran continues to develop its rocket technology and gets new opportunities in this area. The Iranian army is able to use its ballistic missiles against a multitude of targets throughout the Middle East, which threatens American interests.

J. Davis noted that North Korea is increasing the number of its strategic missile group, and in addition, is working to improve the characteristics of its weapons. The armament consists of complexes of different classes, from short-range to intercontinental systems. Pyongyang continues to carry out test launches, and also makes loud statements about its readiness to strike at targets in the United States.

A Pentagon spokesman said that the planned tests of anti-missile systems would be between 15: 00 and 19: 00 North American Eastern Time. Later, according to him, the Missile Defense Agency was supposed to announce detailed information on the verification process, as well as publish photographs and video materials.

In recent tests of missile defense, codenamed FGT-15, various elements of the already deployed system were involved, but the most attention was paid to the GMD complex (Ground-based Midcourse Defense - “Ground Defense Interception System”) GBI (Ground-based Interceptor - "Ground-based Interceptor"). It is this complex that is responsible for the most important stage of interception — the launch of an anti-missile missile and the destruction of a conditional or real target. Over the past two decades, GMD systems have performed almost 40 test launches with different results.

Operation FTG-15 was the first in the last three years to test the anti-missile system, implying a real interception of a conditional target. Previous similar tests took place in June 2014 of the year and ended in a successful defeat of the target. It should be noted that the 2014 test of the year and previous similar launches were intended for testing interception of ballistic missiles of medium and short range. Now it is possible to test the GBI interceptor missile in the fight against the ICBMs that pose the greatest threat to the United States.


The proposed test plan for the FTG-15. Blue indicates the possible trajectory of the target missile, yellow - the interceptor. The white polygon is a possible interception area. Figure Allthingsnuclear.org


In the official reports of the US military, certain information is given, but some of the information about the FTG-15 tests has not yet been announced. For example, the main characteristics of the target missile were not specified. According to various estimates, a ballistic missile with a range of about 5500-5800 km was used, which corresponds to the lower limit of requirements for intercontinental class products. The use of missiles with a greater range is not possible because of the risk of falling target elements on the coast of the continental US.

Previously, information appeared on the Pentagon’s intention to test a new version of an anti-missile missile equipped with an improved over-the-atmosphere kinetic EKV interceptor of the CE-II Block 1 modification. According to reports, this product is a further development of the CE-II EKV serial interceptor, currently on duty. Due to a number of improvements, the new version of the product is distinguished by increased technical characteristics and improved capabilities in intercepting warheads of ballistic missiles. It is noteworthy that on May 30 the updated interceptor was used and tested for the first time, and a three-year break in the checks was primarily due to the need to improve the existing systems and create a new one.

The tasks of detecting a training target during recent tests were assigned to the standard means of a deployed anti-missile defense system. The launch of the target missile was to detect reconnaissance spacecraft, and then its flight was tracked using ground and surface radar stations. With the help of the latter, target designation for the anti-missile missile system was also issued.

In the agreed period of time at the test site on the Kwajalein Atoll there was a launch of a target simulating an intercontinental combat missile. According to some reports, the rocket traveled about half the way to the mainland USA, after which the simulator of its combat unit was successfully destroyed. The anti-missile GBI promptly delivered an EKV interceptor of a new model to a predetermined line, after which he successfully completed targeting the target and struck it. An important feature of the GMD / GBI / EKV complex is the kinetic principle of interception: the target is destroyed by a direct hit by an interceptor.

The recent FTG-15 test is of great importance in the context of the program for the construction and deployment of US missile defense systems. First of all, it is remarkable that for the first time in the history of the whole program an intercontinental ballistic missile was intercepted. Moreover, the target was successfully hit on the first try. All this confirms the capabilities of the updated CE-II Block 1 kinetic interceptor, the creation and deployment of which was one of the main tasks of recent times.

Successful tests also provide an opportunity to continue building missile defense and reinforce it with new GBI missiles with improved interceptors on board. Over the past few years, the identified shortcomings of the EKV interceptors adversely affected the progress of work and, as a consequence, the pace of deployment of the complexes. Now it was confirmed the possibility of operating a new weapon with improved characteristics.

According to well-known plans, in the foreseeable future, the military should receive a total of 11 CE-II Block 1 interceptors. One of them has already been handed over to the customer and even used in tests. Ten other products will arrive in the near future in parts and will be put on duty. A part of the planned batch (according to different data, at least eight units) will be deployed already during the 2017 year. The last interceptors from the ordered batch will be handed over to the army in the middle of the 2018 of the financial year. At the same time, a certain delay in the schedule or its advance is possible.

The specific and ambiguous feature of the construction of the US National Missile Defense System is the fact that it was put on combat duty at the beginning of the last decade, but most of its main elements have not yet passed all the necessary tests and are not fully ready for actual operation. Accordingly, the general characteristics and capabilities of the entire system are still far from desired. Thus, for a long time it was not possible to obtain an acceptable probability of hitting even medium-range missiles, and training targets that simulate ICBMs were not used at all.

US missile defense tests: a new interceptor, the destruction of ICBMs and deployment prospects
Schedule deployment EKV interceptors. Figure Allthingsnuclear.org


Despite various difficulties of various kinds, primarily related to interception means, the industry and the US Department of Defense have already completed the construction of a significant part of the future missile defense facilities. A large amount of work was completed, bringing the whole complex to the desired form. At the same time in the foreseeable future, construction will continue.

According to reports, by the end of 2017, the 44 GBI interceptor missile should be on duty. The main location for the deployment of missiles is the Fort Greely airbase, located in Alaska. So far, there have been prepared and commissioned 36 mine launchers of the GMD complex. Four more missiles by the end of the year will have to serve at Vandenberg base in California. Over the next few months, military specialists will have to complete several more launchers that will complement existing installations and allow them to carry out their plans.

At the moment, as far as is known, anti-missiles with differing combat equipment are located on two bases. The GBI missiles on duty carry the kinetic interceptors of models CE-I EKV and CE-II. At the same time, the latter have been subjected to the toughest criticism for several years and, in fact, cannot be used for their intended purpose. Several test launches of the 2010 of the year showed that the CE-II EKV product in its current form cannot solve the assigned tasks and needs the most serious modifications. As a result of those failures, an improved project CE-II Block 1 was created.

Previously, the responsible persons argued that, taking into account previous experience, only tested samples will be procured from now on. However, this principle has not been implemented. As a result, there was a large order for the production of 11 CE-II Block 1 products, including one prototype. Thus, the issue of purchase of serial products was resolved long before the test of an experienced one. It is noteworthy that the tests of the first interceptor of the new model were completed successfully, so that the project will not be subjected to fierce criticism, as it happened before.

It is easy to see that in the current situation, the Missile Defense Agency had to work "between two fires." On the one hand, it was limited by plans to deploy antimissiles, requiring a large number of interceptors to be deployed in a relatively short time, and on the other, the need to update and improve the existing CE-II EKV product. Accelerating the production of the necessary weapons led to the risks of non-compliance with technical requirements, while the normal development of the improved CE-II Block 1 project led to the risks of disrupting the existing work schedule. Also a noticeable problem could be the instructions on the purchase of weapons only after verification.

Fortunately, the first test launch of the upgraded kinetic interceptor was a success, unique for the entire program. From the first time, the CE-II Block 1 was able to successfully hit the simulator of an intercontinental ballistic missile warhead. Thus, the prototype not only confirmed its high performance, but also showed the fundamental possibility of intercepting complex targets with high airspeed. In addition, an experienced interceptor opened the way for the serial products to the troops.

The FTG-15 tests conducted by 30 in May allow the Missile Defense Agency and the Pentagon to continue the development of existing systems without being strongly criticized by the legislators. The capabilities of the improved interceptor were shown in practice, thanks to which serial products of the same type can be completed, obtained from industry and put on duty. The main result of this will be the possibility of implementing the existing quantitative plans without any problems.

According to reports, now on duty as part of the National Missile Defense System is 36 GBI interceptor missiles with different combat equipment. Most (about 25) missiles are equipped with CE-I kinetic interceptors. Also about a dozen carriers with newer CE-II interceptors are deployed on the bases. However, in the 2010 year, the missiles in this configuration failed the tests twice, because of which their further deployment was stopped. With the advent of the new improved trans-atmospheric interceptor CE-II Block 1, missile defense will be able to continue deploying GBI missiles and increase the number of missiles as required.


An early example of an EKV kinetic interceptor. Photo US Department of Defense


It is known that, to date, the Pentagon has ordered the delivery of GBI 11 rockets with CE-II Block 1 interceptors on board. One of them was used a couple of days ago, and the rest are intended for setting on duty. It should be noted that the current plans include the deployment of 44 missiles with 36 already on duty. What is the reason for the difference in the number of ordered and required missiles - it’s not completely clear yet. It is quite possible that in the foreseeable future new tests will be carried out with the use of various interceptors, and two “extra” new-type missiles will allow to compensate for this expense.

The undoubted success of the latest tests will be a real trump card in further debates about the fate of the National Missile Defense System. Only one test launch showed that the existing problems were successfully solved, and the whole complex was able to intercept complex targets. Now, those responsible for the project may insist on the continuation of work, the construction of new missile defense bases and, of course, additional funding.

Recent events suggest that in the foreseeable future and in the medium term, the United States will be able to strengthen its missile defense system, significantly increasing its potential. Thanks to the new CE-II Block 1 EKV over-atmospheric kinetic interceptors, the updated system will indeed be able to deal with a potential enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles. Moreover, only in this case will it be able to counteract the main threats. Due to the specifics of the geographic location, the United States is threatened, first of all, by the intercontinental missiles. And it is from such weapons that promising complexes should protect the country.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the current plans of the US military leadership involve the deployment of only 44 interceptor missiles at two bases on the West Coast. As a result, even under ideal conditions and the most favorable set of circumstances, the entire National Missile Defense System will be able to intercept no more than 40-44 missile warheads, although its real capabilities are probably noticeably more modest. This means that in the planned condition and configuration the most complex system will be able to protect its country only from a small nuclear missile strike. A full-scale attack by a likely enemy, in turn, will achieve its goals simply due to the number of missiles and their warheads.

Having sufficiently limited capabilities, the American missile defense system is unlikely to be able to provide protection against a massive strike from a state possessing large and powerful strategic nuclear forces. At the same time, however, even the limited potential available may be suitable for protection against the few DPRK missiles, which are called one of the main reasons for the deployment of GMD complexes and other systems. Thus, regardless of the actual plans and wishes, the existing anti-missile defense systems deployed in Alaska and in California are forced to solve exactly the declared tasks.

In the future, the Pentagon plans to start preparing a new position area with Ground-Based Interceptors. Such construction will require particularly large investments and will necessarily be subject to harsh criticism. Nevertheless, supporters of the construction of a national missile defense system now have an argument in favor of continuing the work. Naturally, the controversy will continue, but now the ambitious program has really demonstrated its need and all the available potential.

The national missile defense system of the United States and its main element in the face of the GMD missile complex was officially adopted and put on duty many years ago. However, the decision in principle to put into service and on duty was made long before the completion of the necessary tests. As a result, checks of various elements of the missile defense system are still ongoing, and the main task in the form of interception of intercontinental missiles was solved only a few days ago. The FTG-15 test was the undoubted success of the entire program, but previous events hardly leave any grounds for optimism. The way to solve the tasks was too long and expensive.


On the materials of the sites:
https://defense.gov/
https://mda.mil/
http://allthingsnuclear.org/
https://mostlymissiledefense.com/
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://csis.org/
http://gao.gov/
Author:
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx 1 June 2017 06: 22
    +2
    ours would also conduct demonstrative exercises with the interception of cruise missiles and MBR - this always cools the pinтwasps
    1. Ivanbesmert
      Ivanbesmert 13 June 2017 23: 25
      +1
      Due to the fact that Russian missiles intercept targets with a nuclear charge, this is unlikely.
  2. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 1 June 2017 07: 17
    +3
    All the same, that awkward feeling arises when it seems that the “Undoubted success of the latest tests” is not the result, but a means to continue work on the project. The coordinates of the launch and the trajectory were known in advance, they are silent about the characteristics of the target, evidence of direct hit-to-kill will not be presented. All this resembles a show with a tank stuffed with explosives for one of the anti-tank systems. Show for the Senate and the Committee. I understand that secrecy and other blah blah blah, but it's so convenient! "We have all the evidence! But it's secret, so we won’t show it ..."

    ps "We were on the moon and we will not prove anything to anyone." - from the same variety show ...
    1. NIKNN
      NIKNN 1 June 2017 22: 15
      +3
      Quote: g1washntwn
      All the same, that awkward feeling arises when it seems that "The undoubted success of the latest trials"

      Let's plunge into reality for a minute in order to leave our fantasies ....
      That's how much missile defense is needed if in a block of multiple warheads (with a range of up to 300 km (not knowing where to aim) and still maneuvering in the transonic range ...) there are 10 (warheads), and even 20 pieces of false targets, yes I ( my personal opinion, do not shoot the pianist, he plays as best he can) I think with a probability of defeat of no more than 0,6-0,75, and this is the expense of missile defense (2-3) ... I do not even want to take their expenses ... fool and it's all on one of our ballistic missiles ... then multiply yourself ...
      I don’t have any particularly confused feelings, but I think that somewhere they have reality ...
      Yes, I forgot to say ... Count the speed of the missile defense so that it could bring down ours on take-off from Siberia ... I think that you will exceed the speed of light ... repeat
      1. NIKNN
        NIKNN 1 June 2017 22: 33
        +2
        Add:
        From the well-known film "Dog Heart", a quote from Professor Preobrazhensky .. ".. do not read in the morning of Soviet (today any) newspapers ..." ... hi repeat and sleep well good drinks
      2. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 2 June 2017 07: 12
        0
        In the first post, I only expressed doubt, but did not dispute that the threat was mythical.
        I am inclined to think that the interception of warheads is certainly considered by them, but in the current reality (if you plunge), the first number on the agenda is interception at the initial booster stage BEFORE the separation of warheads and false targets from the combat unit.
        (noticed that the original on NBC did not say that they intercepted the DRAWBOARD, but shot down the ROCKET?). Catching warheads scattered on unpredictable diverging trajectories is the same as trying to catch a handful of peas thrown up. But until the warheads dispersed, they were all threatened by such interceptors.
        And now we look at the probable trajectories and the transatmospheric section in the event of an impact on the territory of the "probable partner" from the existing strategic missile forces positional areas. From Siberia, a block (not a warhead!) Is capable of circumventing the planned areas of missile defense in the atmospheric mode only through the poles. If such interceptors get to Europe and Japan .. and get to Turkey - then there is only one route - the North (and the American concern in this region is precisely for this reason, AEGIS does not swim there and there is nowhere to put GBMD).
        You can start to blame me for the fact that it was "lost", but looking at the speed with which Russia is surrounded by missile defense, nuclear parity is getting closer to the collapse. And aggressors are always baffled by an imaginary sense of impunity - this is what bothers most.
        1. Shahno
          Shahno 6 June 2017 19: 09
          +1
          In principle, to establish aegis on the nuclear submarines and the problem of the northern route is close to solution. The truth is not sure that there will be enough space on the ships.
  3. Ilja2016
    Ilja2016 1 June 2017 08: 53
    0
    This is bullshit and not a test. We know Americans
    1. Do not care
      Do not care 1 June 2017 09: 09
      +3
      Quote: Ilja2016
      This is bullshit and not a test ...


      And if not bullshit?

      Quote: Ilja2016
      .... We know Americans


      ... we, Nicholas ll
      1. lance
        lance 1 June 2017 13: 04
        +2
        and if it’s not bullshit, then we launch a blank for any state with the specified coordinates, and you catch from the poplar. is coming?
      2. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 1 June 2017 18: 08
        0
        This is bullshit against single missiles, because Americans have forgotten how to make neutron warheads and Sprint missiles.
  4. Old26
    Old26 1 June 2017 08: 57
    +8
    Quote: g1washntwn
    All the same, that awkward feeling arises when it seems that the “Undoubted success of the latest tests” is not the result, but a means to continue work on the project. The coordinates of the launch and the trajectory were known in advance, they are silent about the characteristics of the target, evidence of direct hit-to-kill will not be presented. All this resembles a show with a tank stuffed with explosives for one of the anti-tank systems. Show for the Senate and the Committee. I understand that secrecy and other blah blah blah, but it's so convenient! "We have all the evidence! But it's secret, so we won’t show it ..."
    ps "We were on the moon and we will not prove anything to anyone." - from the same variety show ...

    Well, feelings - they are feelings. The "bad" in this message is only that the interceptor worked for an intercontinental target. Prior to this, the targets had the characteristics of intermediate and intermediate-range missiles. .
    A lot is concerned with coordinates and trajectories. Do you think that everything is different with us? I have a friend of about 20 years served on Kapyar. Pvoshnik. And one of his phrases was - you almost always knew the time, the course of the goal. Because, let's be frank, if the calculation (calculations) do not meet the goal, there will be organizational conclusions regarding the commanders of these formations. And nobody needs this. Therefore, our tests are elements of "window dressing." This applies to tests on cruise missiles and target aircraft. At one time, Sary-Shchagan from Kapyar fired a R-12 EMNIP missile to test the missile defense system. The start time according to SEV (single time system) was known to the nearest second. Direction? But what, from Kapyar to Sary-Shagan there were several hundred options for trajectories, or one unique? Of course, the latter.
    The elements of the show are always present with the Americans (by the way, sometimes spectacular spectacles for such tests would also not hurt us, especially when we sell equipment abroad)
    Regarding the characteristics of the target in this test. Do Americans have many options? Do they have a lot of options in service and taken out of service?
    As for the evidence? How do you imagine technically providing this evidence? This test was also monitored by our technical controls. Surely our MO has evidence of the success of the interception, otherwise there would have been a "drain" a long time ago.
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 25 January 2018 18: 14
      0
      Judging by the rather dismissive attitude of our heads to this test, we have enough evidence of "success". Because until they jerk
  5. Ilja2016
    Ilja2016 1 June 2017 08: 57
    +1
    Something like a "moon landing."
    1. Walanin
      Walanin 1 June 2017 14: 20
      +3
      yeah, everyone who needs to be watched, and the crowd of morons continues to read their mantra about Hollywood.
  6. NEXUS
    NEXUS 1 June 2017 09: 04
    +3
    How are mattresses going to intercept maneuvering blocks flying on hyper sound, and even with a bunch of false targets? But Sarmat will be just that.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 June 2017 09: 17
      +3
      1) False goals have learned to distinguish from real ones. On the kinetic
      the killer "has the corresponding" diagnostic "equipment.
      A false target has the same shape, but it is empty. Sensors do it.

      2) Maneuver both warheads and "killers" that slash them
      with their IR cameras and "go to ram." Plus, the killer has software that
      calculates the boundary of the maneuver and tries to accurately calculate the meeting point.
      Maneuvering, of course, complicates the interception, but does not make it impossible.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 1 June 2017 09: 23
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        On the kinetic
        the killer "has the corresponding" diagnostic "equipment.
        A false target has the same shape, but it is empty. Sensors do it.

        And you think that our developers do not know about this?
        Quote: voyaka uh
        2) Maneuver both warheads and "killers" that slash them
        with their IR cameras and "go to ram"

        A block maneuvering with hyper sound does not experience feeble congestion, but an interceptor, at the same time it experiences a lot of congestion ... I doubt very much that the mattresses have anti-missiles, or in the foreseeable future there will be capable of intercepting hyper-speed maneuvering ICBM blocks.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 1 June 2017 09: 36
          +2
          "And you think our developers do not know about this?" ///

          They know, of course. But nothing can be done here. Whole point
          false warheads that they are lightweight "dummies" (a rocket does not need to drag extra weight)
          otherwise it’s more practical to just make them real.

          "The unit maneuvering on a hyper sound experiences not feeble overloads,
          while the interceptor at the same time experiences many times greater overloads "///

          Overloads are about the same, everyone has hypersound. And the maneuver is very, very
          limited (slight "wiggle"), otherwise the forces of inertia deployed combat
          block and he will forever fly away from his course.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 1 June 2017 09: 39
            +2
            Quote: voyaka uh
            And the maneuver is very, very
            limited (slight "wiggle")

            Well, yes ... it was for such a wiggle that the Yu-71 was created.
            1. The comment was deleted.
      2. lance
        lance 1 June 2017 13: 06
        +1
        that is, is Israel ready to destroy the poplar blank?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 1 June 2017 21: 18
          0
          No. Israel has no defense against ICBMs. Only from medium and short range missiles.
      3. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 1 June 2017 18: 12
        0
        I wonder how many anti-ballistic missiles are needed to repel 1000 warheads? And secondly, how are they going to fight targets flying along an aperiodic trajectory?
      4. telobezumnoe
        telobezumnoe 7 June 2017 17: 58
        0
        What do you think, at a speed of 5 km s, how much will the interception area move if the target changes course by at least one degree?
    2. sentaniel
      sentaniel 1 June 2017 09: 57
      0
      No way. They are not maneuvering, in order to be guaranteed to strike, it is necessary to use pieces of 4-6 GBI anti-missile systems of the first version. And on maneuvering, everything is much worse.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 1 June 2017 09: 59
        +1
        Quote: sentaniel
        They are not maneuvering, in order to be guaranteed to hit, it is necessary to pieces 4-6 anti-missile

        According to some reports, up to 50 missiles for one target.
        1. sentaniel
          sentaniel 1 June 2017 10: 06
          +1
          For the first version, it seems from 6 to 8 per one combat unit, for guaranteed destruction. Often, when hit, the course simply changed the warhead without destroying it. The new interceptor is probably better in this regard. But again, there is one carrier for one interceptor, and modern ICBMs carry a bunch of blocks on one carrier. It is not profitable to intercept economically in this way. Since the carrier there is a modified Minuteman-3. Not a cheap treat it comes out, even for the states.
        2. telobezumnoe
          telobezumnoe 7 June 2017 18: 02
          0
          and on others - 2 missile defense per poplar
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 7 June 2017 18: 10
            +3
            Quote: telobezumnoe
            and on others - 2 missile defense per poplar

            And on one Frontier (Vanguard) or on Sarmat? And if you take a closer look, at one YRS-M how many anti-missiles will be needed? Poplars and Poplars-M no longer produce and are not purchased by our MO ...
    3. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 1 June 2017 19: 41
      0
      GBI will intercept Sarmat on the average flight path. There will be no maneuvering there because this is an airless space. Maneuvering is the final stage of flight with entry into the atmosphere. False targets will be yes, but under this "cloud" Americans are preparing a multi kill interceptor.
      And speed do not even think about hypersound, tk. this is only 8m - now the interception is at a speed of 10 km / s, i.e. the speed with which the interceptor and warhead fly towards each other is much higher than hypersound.
      1. Operator
        Operator 1 June 2017 19: 53
        +1
        GBI does not intercept missiles, but warheads (after they are separated from the breeding stage) flying in space, surrounded by false targets. For one BB and ten false targets, you will need at least 11 and at least 22 transatmospheric interceptors. And the United States has them (and not now) of all 44 units, i.e. at best, typed in four BB. At the same time, Russia has about a thousand of its BBs.

        If the United States has multi-kill interceptors, then Russia will simply increase to 100 false targets (inflatable cones from a metallized polymer film) for each BB - and that's all.
      2. telobezumnoe
        telobezumnoe 7 June 2017 18: 09
        0
        you don’t take much into account here. they will not move along a ballistic trajectory, and probably after gaining 100 km of altitude they will separate from the rocket carrier and then fly in hypersound already in the upper layers of the atmosphere, the proper name of the engine and maneuvering. this reduces the detection radius is not much higher than with conventional ballistic missiles, and also complicates the interception, since the fall trajectory is not so easy to predict
  7. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 1 June 2017 09: 05
    0
    The first difficult interception of ICBMs on the counter course "half way."
    Like a "bullet to a bullet" in a duel.

    A missile defense is also being developed, launching an entire "bus" into orbit.
    kinetic interceptors: 8 pieces. That is, it is possible with hits
    Destroy up to 8 ICBM warheads.
    1. sentaniel
      sentaniel 1 June 2017 09: 51
      0
      What is the probability of destruction of a war block by one kinetic interceptor? It was destruction, not hit, because in the course of past tests there were many cases when, when hit, only the course of the warhead changed (casually the interceptor apparently hit). And that they decided to deliver 8 interceptors is reasonable. Because now it is economically unprofitable, given that several interceptors are needed for one combat unit, and modern carriers carry many units - the economic benefit is on the side of the one who launches more combat units. I think the cost of carriers is about the same, since it is used in the Minuteman-3 database.
      1. Walanin
        Walanin 1 June 2017 14: 21
        0
        Quote: sentaniel
        What is the probability of destruction of a war block by one kinetic interceptor?

        At the moment, 100%. Then we wait and see.
        Quote: sentaniel
        economically profitable on the side of the one who will launch more combat units

        economic benefit on the side of the survivor
        1. sentaniel
          sentaniel 2 June 2017 11: 26
          0
          There is no 100% there. Even the probability of getting into 100% is not so much destruction.
      2. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 1 June 2017 18: 13
        0
        I wonder how it will be then with the speed of delivery? Tea is not Spartan with a neutron warhead.
  8. mvg
    mvg 1 June 2017 10: 00
    +3
    Quote: voyaka uh
    1) False goals have learned to distinguish from real ones. On the kinetic
    the killer "has the corresponding" diagnostic "equipment.
    A false target has the same shape, but it is empty. Sensors do it.
    2) Maneuver both warheads and "killers" that slash them
    with their IR cameras and "go to ram." Plus, the killer has software that
    calculates the boundary of the maneuver and tries to accurately calculate the meeting point.
    Maneuvering, of course, complicates the interception, but does not make it impossible.

    It is unrealistic to intercept in combat conditions. If at least part of the US population understood this, there would be no allocation to research.
    Do you yourself believe that you can bring down? Yes, and immediately a bunch of goals?
    PS: Both "killers" and warheads are improving. At the beginning of the mess, 100 dozens of missiles with nuclear warheads will "go" into space 2-pudoff, so that the satellite will become smaller.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 June 2017 10: 24
      +2
      "If at least part of the US population would understand this,
      there would be no provision for research. "///

      The military does not hide at all that in the next 10 years the goal of the program is
      interception of single missiles. Both medium-range and ICBMs.
      Therefore, everything is unfolding so far to cover the cities of California
      from launches from the Far East.
      Improving methods, increasing the likelihood of destruction.
      When detection, tracking, and ramming itself are highly probable
      (as with SAM), it will be possible to think about mass intercepts.
    2. sa-ag
      sa-ag 1 June 2017 10: 43
      +1
      Quote: mvg
      Do you yourself believe that you can bring down? Yes, and immediately a bunch of goals?

      launches into a meeting point a missile with a tactical nuclear charge
      1. lance
        lance 1 June 2017 13: 14
        +1
        where do radioactive fragments fly from kinetics?
      2. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 1 June 2017 18: 15
        0
        Not tactical, but neutron more than megatons into space and several kilotons in the atmosphere.
  9. Old26
    Old26 1 June 2017 10: 21
    +4
    Quote: NEXUS
    A block maneuvering with hyper sound does not experience feeble congestion, but an interceptor, at the same time it experiences a lot of congestion ... I doubt very much that the mattresses have anti-missiles, or in the foreseeable future there will be capable of intercepting hyper-speed maneuvering ICBM blocks.

    Andrew! You do not consider only one. This is an ATMOSPHERIC INTERCEPTOR. Range, depending on the trajectory of the target and the capabilities of target designation and guidance systems from 2000 to 5000 km. Reach in height - around 2000 km. What maneuvers will conduct hypersonic warheads in space ?? It’s not in the atmosphere where it is really necessary for the interceptor to withstand much greater congestion than the target

    In addition, no one knows what Sarmat will be. Well, except for the media that have already placed on it a dozen of those 4202 products that they are experiencing. Moreover, without hesitation, what are the dimensions of these 4202, their weight and the like trifles. They have already placed them on the "Mace" in the amount of more than one piece.
    so let's wait
    1. At least the beginning of the tests of "Sarmat"
    2. The start of testing is really BO for new missiles, not a demonstrator.

    Of course, each side is doing everything to predict possible options for 10 years ahead.



    Quote: NEXUS
    Quote: sentaniel
    They are not maneuvering, in order to be guaranteed to hit, it is necessary to pieces 4-6 anti-missile

    According to some reports, up to 50 missiles for one target.

    Nonsense. Kamrad sentaniel wrote a more accurate figure. To hit a “simple” target (that is, only BG) with a probability of hitting a target of 0,8, up to 4 interceptors will be required. To defeat a complex target (BG, false targets, BS, etc.) - according to calculations, up to 19 interceptors will be required. But I repeat, this is with a probability of hitting a target of 0,8, as the Americans had about 5 years ago. It is enough to raise the probability to 0,9-0,95, as the number of interceptors decreases. But even in the worst case, the number 50 was never voiced, like yours. . By the way, all this indirectly suggests that this entire missile defense system does not provide for the interception of Russian missiles. It just will not be enough (as well as our missile defense system of the Moscow industrial region)

    Quote: sentaniel
    What is the probability of destruction of a war block by one kinetic interceptor? Namely destruction

    According to open sources, about 5 years ago - 0,8
    1. lance
      lance 1 June 2017 13: 17
      +1
      technologically, samrat has already been tested. left the so-called “battle” launch on the hen
    2. figwam
      figwam 1 June 2017 14: 24
      0
      Quote: Old26
      By the way, all this indirectly suggests that this entire missile defense system does not provide for the interception of Russian missiles. It just will not be enough (as well as our missile defense system of the Moscow industrial region)

      Pindovskaya missile defense is designed to intercept missiles in the initial acceleration phase, and not warheads in space!
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 1 June 2017 18: 18
        +1
        GBI is in space, SM-3 and THAAD on overclocking. True, there are questions to the speed parameters of the latter.
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 7 June 2017 18: 15
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      Nonsense. Kamrad sentaniel wrote a more accurate figure.

      Vladimir, God be with him and Sarmatian ... let us leave him alone until the time ... and Rubezh (Vanguard) will not be put on duty today tomorrow. And then what will be the interception coefficients, and how many “killers” will it take? No need to talk about approximate indicators for Topol and Topol-M. These missiles have not been purchased since 11 years.
  10. mvg
    mvg 1 June 2017 10: 53
    +4
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "If at least part of the US population would understand this,
    there would be no provision for research. "///
    The military does not hide at all that in the next 10 years the goal of the program is
    interception of single missiles. Both medium-range and ICBMs.
    Therefore, everything is unfolding so far to cover the cities of California
    from launches from the Far East.
    Improving methods, increasing the likelihood of destruction.
    When detection, tracking, and ramming itself are highly probable
    (as with SAM), it will be possible to think about mass intercepts.

    Yes, I guess that 11 GBI Block-I is not a panacea for Russia or China. As well as 48 interceptors in Alaska (like so many). That (figuratively) would be enough for you to defend against Iran, and even that is not a fact ...
    Not achieved a percentage such as air defense, too many factors. And air defense with a probability of 0.8-0.9 in my understanding is a fake. Otherwise, Hussein would sit in Baghdad, and Milosevic in Belgrade.
    All plans apply only BEFORE the outbreak of hostilities.
    PS: And there is also the possibility that when the “killers” achieve any serious combat readiness, Russia or China will launch a preemptive strike. Who wants to watch you slowly but surely “strangle”, with NO CHANCE.
    ZY: Most likely, this is the economic component of the Cold War, since Russia will still have to take retaliatory measures (Sarmat, Bulava, Liner, Borei, Tu-160M2). Well nifiga are not cheap toys.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 June 2017 11: 29
      +1
      "Russia or China will strike a preventive strike" //// stop stop stop

      In case of rain, they carry an umbrella (PRO). But don't rush to destroy the rain cloud fellow .
  11. sentaniel
    sentaniel 1 June 2017 11: 10
    0
    Quote: Old26

    By the way, all this indirectly suggests that this entire missile defense system does not provide for the interception of Russian missiles. It just will not be enough (as well as our missile defense system of the Moscow industrial region)

    Well, there is still a difference, even if, according to an optimistic forecast, their number standing on combat duty is now able to bring down about 11 combat units of the primitive. And the Moscow missile defense system is about 100.
    1. Walanin
      Walanin 1 June 2017 14: 25
      0
      Quote: sentaniel
      And the Moscow missile defense system is about 100.

      There will be less missile defense in total, so do not flatter yourself.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 1 June 2017 18: 21
        +1
        The A-135 has neutron warheads that output several at a time.
        1. Walanin
          Walanin 1 June 2017 19: 46
          0
          But you are a dreamer however ..
          Better tell us how the radars of the Don-2 station itself will work after exposure to a near nuclear explosion.
          1. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 1 June 2017 20: 11
            +1
            They will work normally as soon as the influence of radiation begins to subside. The BCT of the 51T6 rocket initially worked according to the inertial-radio command principle, during the explosion of the previous rocket, it was briefly switched off, writing data to the ferrite memory. Moreover, she could work exclusively by inertial control in the event of a break in the communication channel and, when it was restored, corrected the trajectory. There, the most difficult task was to create an element base resistant to neutrons. We plan to leave the 235T53 in the A-6 and seriously upgrade the 51T6, to equip the complex with new brains and radar. At least they do not hide the fact that Elbrus R-1000 is used in missile defense right now.
            1. Walanin
              Walanin 1 June 2017 22: 02
              0
              Quote: kugelblitz
              They will work normally as soon as the influence of radiation begins to subside.

              And when does the effect of radiation begin to subside?
              1. kugelblitz
                kugelblitz 1 June 2017 22: 19
                +1
                Frankly, I have not yet delved into this issue, but apparently judging by the operation of the equipment, the action is short-lived. The task of the neutron warhead is to cause the partial decay of fissile material of enemy warheads. Another interesting point, the American version of the Spartan missile defense had a speed of about 4 km / s, moved in a cloud of plasma, a cooled antenna was used for communication, and so the transmitted power of the transmitter was about a megawatt as I recall. Judging by the fact that the 53T6 was moving even faster (5,5 km / s), it was similar along the way. Probably everything was solved with high radiated power for the heap and selection of targets by the most powerful Elbrus-3, or -2 computer at that time, I do not remember exactly.
                1. Walanin
                  Walanin 1 June 2017 23: 44
                  0
                  Open sources say that from a few minutes to several hours.
                  How long does a nuclear attack last?
                  Quote: kugelblitz
                  Probably solved all the high radiated power

                  You are confusing radio communications with missiles and radar operations. If the radar does not see the target, then communication with the missile is useless.
                  And the radar will not be able to see the warhead, which is located beyond the area of ​​high ionization after a nuclear explosion, that is, on approach to Moscow. As a result, we come to the conclusion that for the following purposes, at best, only near atmospheric interceptors can work out.
                  Obviously this is the reason for the persistent creation by the Americans precisely kinetic atmospheric interceptors.
                  1. kugelblitz
                    kugelblitz 2 June 2017 04: 48
                    +1
                    Quote: Walanin
                    And the radar will not be able to see the warhead, which is located beyond the area of ​​high ionization after a nuclear explosion, that is, on approach to Moscow.

                    For this, Elbrus-2 was designed, calculating the direction of flight of the warhead, sending a missile defense in advance. And as for the interference, I think it is precisely the high power of 250 megawatts of Don-2 radar that helped to work both at long ranges of about 40 km, and in conditions of interference. I am not confusing anything:

                    high noise immunity based on high frequency selectivity and a narrow antenna pattern, a wide frequency range, the presence of auto-cancellers, the possibility of reducing sensitivity in the direction of interference sources, the use of special structures of sounding signals;


                    Quote: Walanin
                    Obviously, this is the reason for the persistent creation by the Americans of precisely kinetic transatmospheric interceptors.


                    The reason lies in the low efficiency of the Patriots against the Iraqi converted R-17. And perhaps the loss of technology for the production of neutron munitions.
                    1. Walanin
                      Walanin 2 June 2017 12: 14
                      0
                      Patriots here nothing. Kinetic interception is a relief of a missile defense, but means an increase in its maneuverability and range, the second is a missile defense that does not interrupt the guidance of subsequent ones.
                      Anyway, there’s a difference: flinging your own nuclear warheads over your own city at an altitude of 45 km or a couple of thousand km.
                      For the same reason that the guidance was disrupted, the Russian nuclear anti-ship missiles seem to be present in the warrant only one or two at the very end.
                      Quote: kugelblitz
                      so in interference

                      There is not that interference. There is a complete lack of radio communications. The high ionization region does not pass the radio signal back and forth.
                      1. kugelblitz
                        kugelblitz 2 June 2017 17: 55
                        0
                        Quote: Walanin
                        Patriots here nothing.

                        That's exactly what. Prior to this, sluggishly moving work suddenly revived.
                        Quote: Walanin
                        swing their own nuclear warheads over their own city at an altitude of 45 km or a couple of thousand kilometers.

                        There is, for the bursting warheads, the 53T6 kiloton rocket, which rises in 5 seconds to a height of 30 km, is enough, it’s probably better than getting them several hundred times more. The main work is being done by 51T6 with a megaton warhead for inter-atmospheric interception with ranges from 70 to 670 km. It is she who destroys the main part.
                        Quote: Walanin
                        the reason for the failure of guidance and the Russian nuclear anti-ship missiles seems to be present in the order only one two at the very end.

                        No, due to the fact that these missiles take on the impact of naval air defense systems. Some of them will still break through and damage the guidance equipment.
                        Quote: Walanin
                        There is not that interference. There is a complete lack of radio communications.

                        Enough to beat off the blow. Moreover, the range of the radar and the computing power of the computer will allow those who are able to independently launch guided missiles.
                    2. Walanin
                      Walanin 2 June 2017 19: 17
                      0
                      Quote: kugelblitz
                      The main work is done by 51T6

                      only it was for some reason that they were removed from service.
                      Quote: kugelblitz
                      No, due to the fact that these missiles take on the impact of naval air defense systems

                      no no yes. Otherwise, what prevents putting a nuclear warhead on all missile warrants.
                      Quote: kugelblitz
                      Enough to beat off the blow.

                      In the best case, it’s enough to hold him for another minute and that’s all.
                      Quote: kugelblitz
                      computing power of the computer will allow those able to autonomously induced missiles.

                      Only such missiles are not present. Neither 53T6 nor 51T6 are self-guided.
                      1. kugelblitz
                        kugelblitz 3 June 2017 08: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Walanin
                        only it was for some reason that they were removed from service.

                        Shelf life expired. At the moment, only 53T6 has been restored to production. 51T6 is apparently seriously remade, random frames shine, the second step is similar, the first is shorter in length.
                        Quote: Walanin
                        no no yes. Otherwise, what prevents putting a nuclear warhead on all missile warrants.

                        It would be too expensive to lose missiles with special warheads, therefore.
                        Quote: Walanin
                        In the best case, it’s enough to hold him for another minute and that’s all.

                        100% no system can protect, but the effectiveness of the A-135 and Seyfgard was much higher than this misunderstanding. The Americans refused according to their version because of the high cost and impossibility of a mobile option.
                        Quote: Walanin
                        Only such missiles are not present. Neither 53T6 nor 51T6 are self-guided.

                        Ok, if there is no faith, I will quote. It removes all questions.
                        A-925 missiles feature is a greater autonomy in the guidance process and more guidance equipment on board the missile. The missile is equipped with a command-inertial control system with a BCM 5E28A / Argon-17A - first used on missiles of this class (source). On-board equipment and missile defense computer are made in a radiation-resistant design. The functioning of the A-135 system during interruptions of the ground-to-board communication is ensured.

                        Initially, design work on a computer base (code 5E27) for the A-925 long-range interceptor missile was started on the instructions of the Fakel missile launcher as part of the Polynom-2 development center in November 1970. In accordance with the military-industrial complex decision of January 1972, the computer base 5E27 have been discontinued. On the basis of the results obtained for the Polynomial-2 development, the development of the 5V28 BCM began. Due to the insufficient reliability of the BTsVM 5E28 in flight conditions, in May 1980 the TTZ was agreed with the Fakel ICB on the BTsVM 5E28A, which is resistant to the effects of an electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear explosion and radiation-resistant. By order of the Ministry of Radioprom of December 1984, the development of the BCVM 5E28A production was entrusted to the Chisinau Computer Plant named after 50th anniversary of the USSR.

                        The operation of the computer in combat mode when exposed to specified levels of radiation was ensured by briefly interrupting the computational process during the passage of the danger zone from a nuclear explosion of the head of the previous missile. In this case, the contents of the base registers of the computer were recorded in the ferrite memory of the restart unit, and after passing through the danger zone, the computing process in the computer was restored, which ensured the solution of combat missions. The solutions incorporated in the structure of the computer center successfully passed stand-alone bench tests and full-scale tests at the test site during an underground nuclear explosion, and later on during the factory tests of a missile defense.

                        The speed necessary for the digital computer, associated with the hard real time of combat mission algorithms, was provided by introducing pipelined information processing and a problem-oriented variable command system (SEARCH). SEARCH macros focused on specific algorithms were run at the firmware level.

                        Fulfillment of strict requirements for the mainframe computer in terms of reliability, primarily in terms of combat readiness during routine maintenance, is once every two years, which was caused by the conditions for missile defense on combat duty in mine launchers, which was ensured by using the already tested structure of the computer, developed for space objects. This is a three-channel synchronous redundant computing complex with majority bodies, with the implementation of bitwise majorization of information and control lines and redundancy of interface elements during the exchange process. Thanks to this structure, the machine remains operational when failures occur in opposite discharges of highways and associated circuits of different channels. Microprocessor-based LSIs of the 5 series and ICs of the 28, 583, 106, 134 series were used as the main element base of the BCVM 530E533A.
  12. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 1 June 2017 11: 17
    0
    This "kinetic" interceptor is of course a very primitive bluff which nobody (especially the leaders of the DPRK) will intimidate.
    Several nuclear megaton class interceptors have a chance to destroy one ICBM warhead.
  13. Evgenijus
    Evgenijus 1 June 2017 11: 37
    0
    What is success is not observed. And so this is a lab. They intercepted a rocket block moving in a straight line trajectory. Chip from a cool coffee maker to cope with the calculation of the meeting point of the block and anti-missiles. Now all modern ICBMs are equipped with warheads with blocks of individual guidance, and even maneuvering. In this case, the coffee maker is not enough. Yes, let them spend money, let them cut their budget ...
    1. Walanin
      Walanin 1 June 2017 14: 24
      +1
      Yes, it's not a one-time spaceport to build. Clean drank.
  14. mvg
    mvg 1 June 2017 12: 14
    +3
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "Russia or China will strike a preventive strike" //// stop stop stop
    In case of rain, they carry an umbrella (PRO). But don't rush to destroy the rain cloud fellow .

    In case of rain, just shoot at thunderclouds. So that the rain gushes out where it is not necessary. And the umbrella (PRO) will not save much from the rain, it will still wet, and even spoil the mood. (bad
  15. mvg
    mvg 1 June 2017 12: 21
    +3
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "Russia or China will strike a preventive strike" //// stop stop stop
    In case of rain, they carry an umbrella (PRO). But don't rush to destroy the rain cloud fellow .

    Just a cloud is destroyed, so that the "rain" will not pour out on us. (Olympics there, or city day is an example). Umbrella (PRO) is not strong and will save, still wet and spoil the mood. So it’s better to shoot lightning bolts into the cloud.
    Unimportant rain example.
    PS: As far as I know, in the military doctrine of the Russian Federation there is the concept of a “preventive" strike. And it is right. If the continental United States is covered by an ABM umbrella, and the Igid’s cruisers and destroyers rise along the perimeter of Russia, and even the allies get tight, then I think you should not wait for the fate of Yugoslavia, Libya and Iraq. Moreover, the fate will be worse than in the countries mentioned.
    Just sell life more expensive. Anyway, the mattress covers, apparently, will not calm down until the digging stick (shovel) is the most difficult tool in the Russian Federation.
    Sincerely sorry for Europe. She will definitely get it in full.
    1. lance
      lance 1 June 2017 13: 22
      +1
      Well, if our moe neighing over 4,5 minutes of the United States. then the answer is politit before the US mbr begin to break with us. therefore, everything is calm in Baghdad.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 June 2017 14: 41
      0
      I see the future completely different: Americans will have to urgently once again
      to organize military lendlization for economically weakened Russia,
      attacked by a powerful land superpower China. Russia will win,
      America will be her best friend for some time, and then again will fall into enemies
      - on a new ...
      But, we will not vang.
      1. sentaniel
        sentaniel 2 June 2017 10: 44
        0
        And I see that China is preparing for the annexation of the Pacific region, and not Russia and the United States - this is more exciting than Russia. And their main dream is to wipe Japan off the face of the earth. They say this is enough for 3 days from them. Accordingly, all the forces of the US Navy will be involved in the Pacific theater of operations. They will definitely not care about Europe at that moment. Accordingly, since almost all the forces of the Navy will be occupied, the possibility of delivering a preventive nuclear strike against the United States will increase. The start of an attack can be, for example, the launch of a thermonuclear missile with a special warhead generating increased EMP, whose radius is enough to cover the entire territory of the United States. And against the US Navy, the Chinese have ballistic anti-ship missiles with a nuclear warhead. SM-3 war blocks have not learned how to shoot down yet?
  16. Ardein
    Ardein 1 June 2017 14: 59
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The first difficult interception of ICBMs on the counter course "half way."
    Like a "bullet to a bullet" in a duel.
    A missile defense is also being developed, launching an entire "bus" into orbit.
    kinetic interceptors: 8 pieces. That is, it is possible with hits
    Destroy up to 8 ICBM warheads.

    "Bus" is the most logical solution, but:
    The position areas for the deployment of missile defense are known, and no one bothers to detect launches of interceptor carriers and not use special units with a powerful EMR generator in the "leading" pack of warheads? The interceptors need to “see” the target, and the warhead can be preventively and behind the atmosphere covered by a plasma generator.
    PS In a situation of massive exchange of ICBMs, there will already be no one for satellites.
    PPS And no one bothers to bring specialized satellites with the necessary equipment to the target area in advance. Fortunately, the relevant topics are still successful. It’s not just that our “spaces” periodically come to life and maneuver in orbits.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 June 2017 21: 37
      0
      Nobody is engaged in mass intercepts yet. Do not forget that only 20 years ago, serious physicists claimed that it was impossible to get a "bullet into a bullet." It turned out to be possible. A direct hit in a heading course in space into an object measuring 170 cm X 100 cm - the size of a warhead - flying at a speed of 11 MAX seems beyond common sense. But the fact is that they do. There was a revolution in missile defense. Although it does not always fall so far and not the first time.
      1. sentaniel
        sentaniel 2 June 2017 10: 55
        0
        And when they even get in, they’re not always destroyed, because on a tangent often)
      2. Ardein
        Ardein 2 June 2017 15: 27
        0
        And here’s what they’ll do if outside the atmosphere the warheads reveal a semblance of a reflecting umbrella (there is no atmosphere, pure inertia) several times larger than the warhead itself (and not the fact that it will go in the center ... )? At the rapprochement speed in M ​​= 10 +, not every splinter gets into what you don’t see, not like a “bullet into a bullet” ... This is the most obvious thing that comes up, all the more, such studies were carried out in Soviet times.
  17. Operator
    Operator 1 June 2017 15: 22
    +1
    In reality, the CE-II Block 1 EKV transatmospheric interceptors are not able to intercept any of the military blocks of Russian ICBMs and SLBMs, accompanied by false targets.

    The GBI program is intended only to intercept the warheads of North Korean ICBMs without tracking them with false targets.

    1. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 1 June 2017 17: 23
      0
      Do you think Americans are stupid idiots? Very naive. They all calculate it. And the differences between false and warheads on two-spectrum sensors. And most importantly, their missile defense system is multi-layered and 44 GBI missiles are only part of the system.
      They are already ready to intercept our missiles at the upper stage with the help of Aegis destroyers and ground bases in Romania Hawaii (soon Poland) with the SM-3 missile. With the help of GBI, they have now shown that they are ready to shoot down combat units in the middle section of the flight. And in the Third, they are ready to shoot down maneuvering blocks on the final atmospheric section with the help of THAAD and Patriot PAC-3. In fact, now we are not talking about 44 possibly shot down missiles, as the author of the article sings here, but about several hundred shot down missiles (warheads). This is very serious. And the capabilities of this missile defense system will only increase from year to year.
      1. Operator
        Operator 1 June 2017 19: 22
        +1
        Tell us how you can distinguish the electromagnetic spectrum of a BB covered with a metallized film from the electromagnetic spectrum of a false target consisting of a metallized film in the shape of a BB laughing

        Did you know that THAAD has only transatmospheric missiles in its arsenal, which are useless if the AP is used together with spurious targets, and Partiot is not able to intercept air targets flying at the speed of AP ICBM / SLBM?
  18. mvg
    mvg 1 June 2017 16: 17
    +2
    Quote: sa-ag
    Quote: mvg
    Do you yourself believe that you can bring down? Yes, and immediately a bunch of goals?

    launches into a meeting point a missile with a tactical nuclear charge

    At what point? At what stage? It's about shooting down a warhead. Take a closer look at how the separation of the BG from the rocket occurs.
    What did such clever warriors not immediately think of? Take off in space 2-3 Mtn thermonuclear fusion and all, all BG khan.
    1. Soho
      Soho 9 June 2017 09: 50
      0
      if memory serves, the Americans in the 70s had a missile defense program, which was based on the use of nuclear charges of air blasting. Canadians then greatly overtaxed, since all this "happiness" would have happened over their heads
  19. Old26
    Old26 1 June 2017 17: 42
    +1
    Quote: Lance
    technologically, samrat has already been tested. left the so-called “battle” launch on the hen

    Tested? Moreover, there were not even throwing trials; they were postponed to June. That is supposed to happen this month. Throwing. And this means that the PAD will fire a “rocket” from the mine with a fuel reserve of 10-20 seconds of flight solely so that the rocket does not crash back into the silo. And when the flight tests begin - is generally unknown. Of at least 8 launches planned for this year, Sarmat launches do not appear

    Quote: figvam
    Pindovskaya missile defense is designed to intercept missiles in the initial acceleration phase, and not warheads in space!

    Name at least one missile defense system in the world that is designed to intercept on the upper stage. For this, the missile defense must be located not far from the launch point. Yes, and the speed of the interceptors should be a "strategic missile defense." But this is not yet. The only strategic missile defense interceptors are in Alaska and California. HERE and try to get at least North Korean ones at the stage of dispersal. All serious missile defense (of course, not intended to intercept tactical missiles) is designed TO INTERCEPT THE WAREHOUSES and most often in the final stretch of flight, not missiles

    Quote: sentaniel
    Well, there is still a difference, even if, according to an optimistic forecast, their number standing on combat duty is now able to bring down about 11 combat units of the primitive. And the Moscow missile defense system is about 100.

    The Moscow missile defense system now has about 64 short-range interceptors. And even with a full set, the missile defense system was able to intercept about 16-32 pair targets. No more
    1. sentaniel
      sentaniel 2 June 2017 11: 05
      0
      There is a nuclear warhead at the missiles. Can they not immediately hit the group goals? I mean the 51T6 mod with the nuclear warhead of the Nudol object
  20. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 2 June 2017 17: 16
    0
    Quote: Ardein
    And here’s what they’ll do if outside the atmosphere the warheads reveal a semblance of a reflecting umbrella (there is no atmosphere, pure inertia) several times larger than the warhead itself (and not the fact that it will go in the center ... )? At the rapprochement speed in M ​​= 10 +, not every splinter gets into what you don’t see, not like a “bullet into a bullet” ... This is the most obvious thing that comes up, all the more, such studies were carried out in Soviet times.

    They will not do anything because nothing can be done. There are many options - you can cover the war block with fragments and then no kinetic interception is possible.
  21. ura-banzai
    ura-banzai 2 June 2017 20: 05
    +1
    Boxers win with blows and not with defense. Although they begin training with evasion and protection.
  22. bratchanin3
    bratchanin3 13 March 2018 14: 56
    0
    I think that the Americans made a big strategic mistake by choosing missile defense as national security. In the eternal competition of "Shield" and "Bullets," primacy has always belonged to bullets and is cheaper and more efficient. The Soviet RPG-7 grenade launcher crumbles the modern Abrams in two.