Military Review

The Russian Defense Ministry is doing too much credit for American missile defense

24



The United States in five years will bring the number of its missiles within the missile defense system to a thousand, predicted the Defense Ministry, stressing that Americans can easily shoot down Russian missiles today. But the retired generals, unlike the current ones, reassured the newspaper VIEW that the number of anti-missile missiles was up to a thousand expensive even for the United States, and, most importantly, it would not help them anyway. Is the military exaggerate the threat?

The United States will have more than 2022 thousand missiles in the missile defense system by 1, suggested Defense Ministry spokesman Alexander Yemelyanov, speaking at a Russian-Chinese briefing on the margins of the UN General Assembly.

"Consider the capabilities of the US missile defense system," Interfax quoted Thursday Emelyanov. - Today they include over 30 anti-missile systems GBI, 130 standard-3 interceptors, 150 Thaad anti-intercept systems. I note that more than 60 interceptors are deployed in Europe, around 150 interceptors as part of the Asia-Pacific regional missile defense system. ”

According to Yemelyanov, "according to our estimates, by 2022, the number of missile defense systems of the missile defense system will be more than 1000 units, and in the future it will exceed the number of warheads deployed on Russian intercontinental missiles." According to him, such a number threatens Russia's deterrence potential, especially given the constant improvement of missile defense.

For example, upgrading the anti-missile Standard-3 will increase not only its speed, but also the range and the height of the interception of ballistic missiles. “According to Russian experts, the Standard-3 anti-missiles 2A modifications, which are expected to be deployed from 2018, will be able to intercept strategic ballistic missiles not only at the middle and final, but also at the upstream part of the missile flight trajectory, which allows hitting ballistic missiles before the moment of breeding warheads, "- warned Emelyanov.

Strikes from the Baltic and Barents Seas

“The information and intelligence assets of the US missile defense system already now provide not only the detection of the launch of Russian ballistic missiles, their tracking along the flight trajectory, but also the issuance of target indications to missile defense complexes for intercepting the combat units of ballistic missiles,” Yemelyanov added.

The representative of the Ministry of Defense gave examples of hypothetical scenarios of such interception. In particular, one of the scenarios involves the interception of a Russian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) missile defense system from a US warship in the Baltic. In another scenario, they intercepted a ballistic missile launched from a Russian submarine in the Barents Sea. A hypothetical interception was performed by a US ship with Standard-3 antimissiles in the Norwegian Sea. Taking into account the high speed of the anti-missile missiles, interception of the target in both cases is possible even at the initial stage of the flight, Emelyanov noted. In the third scenario, Russian experts modeled the interception of an ICBM launched from the central part of Russia with an anti-missile defense system from the United States.

Emelyanov also recalled that the United States can quickly arm cruise missiles with the universal installations of its Mk-41 missile defense system already deployed in Romania and Poland. “The thesis that the Mk-41 launchers allegedly lose their ability to launch cruise missiles in the ground version is not convincing. Replacing anti-missile systems at European missile defense bases with cruise missiles ... can be carried out covertly and in a short time. In this case, the entire European part of Russia will be under the gun of cruise missiles, ”TASS quotes Emelyanova.

Atmospheric and transatmospheric interception

Scenarios for the death of Russian missiles, voiced by Yemelyanov, the former deputy commander of the air defense forces of the Land Forces of the Russian Federation, Lieutenant-General Alexander Luzan took it with skepticism, since they are based on greenhouse conditions.

“Even on real exercises, a conventional ballistic missile is used. She does not maneuver. It is not equipped with means to overcome missile defense. This is a common target with a detachable head. There is nothing difficult. What is the difference in which sea it happens? Bow before all this? I am far from all this. Americans should bow down to Russia, ”said LUSAN'S VIEW to the newspaper, reminding that the USA even bought C-300В complexes from us, although it was contrary to American laws, but the technology of creating these complexes, the so-called mathematics, they still and have not received.

According to the general, the Russian reserve in the field of missile defense is three to four orders of magnitude higher than that of the US, although we still do not have an over-atmospheric intercept missile. Luzan noted the high class of American weapons that have infrared and ultraviolet (suitable for space) homing heads. Such missiles can hit small-sized targets on a huge radius. Russia uses other technologies, for example, in C-300 systems, directional explosions are used by debris after detonation of a missile warhead. As Luzan explained:

“Radar guidance is less accurate than American optical homing heads.” But this accuracy is enough to hit a target an order of magnitude higher than the American systems can. ”

He does not deny the ability of US missile defense to hit targets already on take-off. “Now there is a second modification of the Standard-2, a third one should appear. These missiles provide atmospheric and transatmospheric interception of targets. But anti-missiles then have to stand near the launch site. To us, the Americans set them up through Poland and Romania. Trying to catch us. But all this is conditional. Our starting positions are not near the border. We are the only country that can put missiles on alert within seven seconds. Our ICBM is already flying 70 kilometers and will pick up speed when the Americans just launch an anti-missile. Therefore, then what will be the probability of interception by the same “Standard”? ”The expert asked rhetorically.

Although Russia is seriously protected from US missile defense, it still requires a lot of attention to this issue, says Luzan. In response to a possible increase in US capacity, we will not even need new systems. In his opinion, it will be enough - without significant costs - to upgrade existing ones, which will provide a reserve for the next 15 years.

The missile defense can only reflect single volleys.

“The question is not only in the number of missiles, but also in the number of deployed launchers. So far, as far as we know, the number of launchers among Americans is not large enough, ”said Captain I rank Konstantin Sivkov, first vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems.

“The existing US missile defense system at the strategic level is capable of repelling the impacts of single ballistic missiles, more precisely, blocks. It is not able to repel group, and all the more massed nuclear missile strikes. As for rocket weapons operational-tactical scale, that is, theater missile defense systems, then the Americans have better opportunities. They can reflect already strikes, probably, and group. That is, about five to six missiles, they are able to destroy a volley. But again, depending on which rockets. If we are talking about P-17 Scud missiles, old ones, then yes. If about the Iskander-M type missiles, then the Americans have little opportunity to shoot down, ”explained Sivkov to the VIEW newspaper.

“The Americans' GBI anti-missiles are about one and a half hundred, not more. The question is how many of them will be deployed. It is known that 50 – 60 are now deployed. All these missiles are capable of total destruction of no more than three to five warheads. So that they could have a significant impact on the balance of strategic nuclear forces, they must be deployed not a thousand, but not less than two thousand such missiles. And it is already deployed on launchers, ready to work, ”- reassures Sivkov.
As the newspaper VIEW wrote, the development of the American missile defense system is still far from perfect. Despite the statements made in May about the success of tests of the newest system, which allows destroying ICBMs directly in space, in fact this system turned out to be not only very expensive, but also far from perfect against real ICBMs, and not imitations.

The former deputy commander-in-chief of a different kind of troops - the Air Force, Lieutenant-General Aytech Bizhev believes that the Russians should not be worried, because there is no analogue to the Russian strategic nuclear forces in the world. “Our strategic nuclear forces are able to overcome US missile defense.” If there will be more American antimissiles, then the likelihood of overcoming this shield will be less, ”said Bezhev to VIEW.

Another issue is that engaging in an arms race will lead to economic ruin, Bizhev said. “These are all elements of the Cold War. We passed it in Soviet times. The US military-industrial complex can afford to increase its arsenal. But this is a very destructive event, expensive even for them, ”said the expert. In any case, the general added, Russia has something to answer, only our country is now going by not achieving parity in the number of warheads, but creates high-precision weapons.
Author:
Originator:
https://vz.ru/politics/2017/10/13/890860.html
24 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kind
    kind 17 October 2017 16: 16 New
    +3
    There are also simulators of targets that allow you to lure anti-missiles, and then, with real missiles, strike at their own positions. And also ... no, that's enough, the rest is a military secret!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 October 2017 20: 38 New
      +2
      On missiles SM 3 of the latest modification will be interceptors with the selection of false targets.
    2. Titsen
      Titsen 18 October 2017 07: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: Good
      There are also simulators of targets that allow you to lure anti-missiles, and then, with real missiles, strike at their own positions. And also ... no, that's enough, the rest is a military secret!


      We have a tafnik walking around the trading floor - and you can come to us!

      Cache You are our forum ...
  2. NordUral
    NordUral 17 October 2017 16: 28 New
    +5
    The main thing is completely different - that our missiles, all of them, take off at the moment of the hour “Ch”. And not only in terms of survival, but also in terms of the will of the country's leadership to defend the interests of the country and people. But with the last cloud of doubt.
    1. papas-57
      papas-57 17 October 2017 19: 25 New
      0
      The Americans conducted all tests of their missile defense in greenhouse conditions. They launched one rocket, at the request of the manufacturer is not the most modern. The time and place of the launch is known, the flight path of the rocket is known. I even admit that they installed radio beacons in order to avoid a slip and the corresponding organizational conclusions from the side of higher bosses. And still there were misses. And it is not known how their missile defense will behave during a mass launch of missiles. Won't their computers burn out from overload, is everything tied up in a single system, will their whole missile defense system go crazy, will their anti-missile fire at each other without finding easier targets? Well, they will destroy one hundred warheads, two hundred, five hundred, the rest will reach the goals and `` khan stronghold of democracy. ''
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 17 October 2017 20: 40 New
        0
        The more missiles you launch, the easier it will be to find and take them on escort.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 17 October 2017 23: 42 New
          +3
          Quote: Vadim237
          The more missiles you launch, the easier it will be to find and take them on escort.

          Are cold plasma generators, in your opinion, so-so exotic? And what about the anti-rocket battery action?
          And the destruction of ships with Aegis in the area of ​​maritime missile defense staff?
          And what, all this will not allow to break through the AMS missile defense?
  3. bogart047
    bogart047 17 October 2017 16: 58 New
    0
    I think no one wants to test these theories in practice.
  4. SMP
    SMP 17 October 2017 17: 45 New
    +1
    Quote: Good
    There are also simulators of targets that allow you to lure anti-missiles, and then, with real missiles, strike at their own positions. And also ... no, that's enough, the rest is a military secret!


    Not only imitators can theoretically create mini Caliber, with a range of about 450 km,
    under the rocket launcher 9K57 "Hurricane" - 220 mm caliber.
    The Kaliningrad region and Crimea completely covers the entire territory of Eastern Europe.
    Stuffing from 155 mm nuclear shells of self-propelled guns Msta-S Akatsiya, in the Russian Federation since the days of the USSR there are enough of them.
    And try to figure out that there is a microwave generator, or a 2 kiloton plutonium charge pulled out of the shell of a 152 mm shell. And the fact that all USA anti-missile defense systems located in Eastern Europe are easily destroyed I have no doubt what the Americans will do if they are released from the 9K57 MLRS systems at the same time? In Syria, they showed Caliber, and also that didn't show?

    Former deputy commander-in-chief of another type of troops - the Air Force, Lieutenant General Aitech Bizhev believes that the Russians should not be alarmed, since there is no analogue of the Russian strategic nuclear forces in the world. “Our strategic nuclear forces are able to overcome the US missile defense.


    It’s not for nothing that Kiriyenko was taken out of the Atom min. That there ...... now the Yeltsin team does not need to know))))) laughing
  5. andrewkor
    andrewkor 17 October 2017 19: 32 New
    0
    Even during the American aggression in Vietnam, there were up to 10 S-75 missiles per shot down, so what is easier to bring down a block from ICBMs and the ratio of bash to bash?
    1. CooL_SnipeR
      CooL_SnipeR 17 October 2017 20: 21 New
      +2
      Well, yes, and not what, then, in the year 65, 1 missiles from a dvina accounted for 1,5 plane? 4 hundred were shot down and only tactics reduced losses to the ones you used? And after the appearance of the moment, 21 Americans actually turned off flights? Total on average there were about 3 rockets per plane! Would you fly if you were shot down with a 33% probability?
      Z.Y. Learn the story my friend
      1. Soho
        Soho 18 October 2017 05: 45 New
        0
        Total on average there were about 3 rockets per plane! Would you fly if you were shot down with a 33% probability?

        Americans had high losses at the initial stage, when the C75 installations only appeared at the Viet Cong. Then there were jammers who reduced the ability to capture and track targets, anti-radar Shriki, low-altitude tactics, etc.
        In addition, the data on the number of American aircraft shot down by Dvina complexes varies widely. The MO data are probably overstated - the discrepancy between our estimates (2000 units) and American (200 units) is too great.
        and about probability
        shot down with a probability of 33%

        so it’s generally far-fetched. Where big losses compared with the "big aviation" suffered by American helicopter pilots, including and in% ratio. But the intensity of their work did not decrease in any way.
        1. basmach
          basmach 18 October 2017 11: 35 New
          0
          And you look at the data that somehow rescued their rescue service. They also decided to brag about their achievements in Vietnam and published a figure (I don’t remember the exact one), a little more than 2000 people. (it is clear that there are helicopter pilots). Well, at the same time, you can dig around and find data on the loss of technology. Judging by their materials, they also kicked ours in Korea. But my regiment in Korea fought for Korea - THREE GSS.
          1. Soho
            Soho 18 October 2017 11: 52 New
            0
            basmach Today, 11: 35 ↑
            And you look at the data that somehow rescued their rescue service. They also decided to brag about their achievements in Vietnam and published a figure (I don’t remember the exact one), a little more than 2000 people. (it is clear that there are helicopter pilots). Well, at the same time, you can dig around and find data on the loss of technology. Judging by their materials, they also kicked ours in Korea. But my regiment in Korea fought for Korea - THREE GSS.

            in this case, we are talking about downed planes using the C75 complex. And those shot down with the help of anti-aircraft artillery, the SRV Air Force, small arms, lost as a result of equipment failure, etc., are a separate and not a small block. These rescue services do not provide an understanding of the causes of the accident
            1. basmach
              basmach 18 October 2017 12: 37 New
              0
              Amerovsky planes practically did not fly at low altitudes precisely because of the high saturation of the MZA. Regarding equipment failures. Well, I don’t need, as I did serve in the 523 Orsha Red Banner Order of Suvorov, Kutuzov, Al. Nevsky Apib. And I know about refusals not by hearsay (and by their consequences). And the rescue service is not involved in the export from the front line, but is intended, first of all, to save the downed pilots in the rear of the enemy (since this is a very valuable and expensive resource), and there were also not saved (dead and prisoners, also not small) And the Americans have learned well from Goebels to lie.
              1. Soho
                Soho 19 October 2017 07: 15 New
                0
                Amerovsky planes practically did not fly at low altitudes precisely because of the high saturation of the MZA.

                Well, no need to talk about "did not fly." Even as they flew. And therefore, losses were incurred from MZA.
                And the Americans have learned well from Goebels to lie.

                yes, and our MO is honestly like a baby's tear laughing I choked tea)))
                1. basmach
                  basmach 19 October 2017 08: 50 New
                  0
                  Naturally, after the 75 “landed” them. But in the world of those speeds, the losses from the MZA are reduced compared to the WWII, the angular displacement speeds are too high and automated means of calculating and entering corrections are needed, but the Shilok was not there yet. But your policy is clear to me, met such. Here are the Yankees, and they even fight and do not lie, and our wahlaki cabbage soup claw bast. By the way, as far as I remember, according to Amer’s calculations, each 13 th departure ended with a shot down. Of course, over time, they developed tactics, began to use anti-missiles, but they also did not sit idly by (I, by the way, had a chance to study our missile in the school, and according to the stories of the teachers, the stages of development of both the GOS guidance of the SD and countermeasures)
                  1. Soho
                    Soho 19 October 2017 08: 58 New
                    0
                    I understand your policy, met such. Here are the Yankees, and they even fight and do not lie, and our wahlaki cabbage soup claw bast.

                    do not smack the stuff picked out from a nose. I have never been a fan of Great Matrassia and I am not going to be one. And if I call into question the +100500 downed American planes declared by the USSR Ministry of Defense, so be warned, there is a reason. In addition, similar doubts are expressed by everyone who analyzed the situation regarding the losses of the air forces of both warring parties.
                    1. basmach
                      basmach 19 October 2017 09: 00 New
                      0
                      Facts in the studio, otherwise all your speculation is picking your nose.
                      1. Soho
                        Soho 19 October 2017 10: 24 New
                        +1
                        basmach Today, 09: 00 ↑
                        Facts in the studio, otherwise all your speculation is picking your nose.

                        The facts that MO is constantly lying like a gray gelding? Yes, it’s enough that I saw and walked in 87-88 during the urgent call “beyond the river”, and that at that moment they told you, on the Great Land. And in all subsequent conflicts, ranging from Chechen companies to the events of 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX, it was difficult to understand what was more there in the reports of general staff officers — truth or lies
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 October 2017 20: 44 New
      0
      Well, missile defense systems aren’t for you. Since 75 and ICBMs aren’t a plane, she won’t be able to dodge, and they won’t be able to determine the warheads themselves, because kinetic interceptors are flying in their direction, since we don’t have radars and AI on warheads.
      1. kos2910
        kos2910 18 October 2017 12: 31 New
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        warheads themselves cannot

        This is for now, but since 2020, Sarmat has been on duty. Well, then, the rockets themselves can maneuver.
  6. Soho
    Soho 18 October 2017 05: 14 New
    +6
    believes that Russians should not be worried

    I remember some generals in the late 30s also claimed that the war would only go on the territory of the aggressor. As soon as they were near Moscow, it’s not clear ...
  7. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 19 October 2017 19: 41 New
    0
    Quote: Soho
    Total on average there were about 3 rockets per plane! Would you fly if you were shot down with a 33% probability?

    Americans had high losses at the initial stage, when the C75 installations only appeared at the Viet Cong. Then there were jammers who reduced the ability to capture and track targets, anti-radar Shriki, low-altitude tactics, etc.
    In addition, the data on the number of American aircraft shot down by Dvina complexes varies widely. The MO data are probably overstated - the discrepancy between our estimates (2000 units) and American (200 units) is too great.
    and about probability
    shot down with a probability of 33%

    so it’s generally far-fetched. Where big losses compared with the "big aviation" suffered by American helicopter pilots, including and in% ratio. But the intensity of their work did not decrease in any way.

    Our response to the tactics of low-altitude flights was the appearance of complexes like Shilka, double-barreled anti-aircraft guns based on ZIL, etc. I well remember the shots when the Vietnamese extinguish mattresses from DShKM ... drinks