SUCCESS MUST BE FULL
The author of this article in the 2008 – 2011 years repeatedly wrote about the threat of a disarming non-nuclear strike by the United States on our strategic nuclear forces. It was also said that such a strike would be carried out with the help of the Tomahawk SLCMB and the ALCM, as well as with the help of the B-2 bombers built using stealth technology.
The fact is that a disarming strike cannot be partially successful. You cannot destroy, for example, 20% of Russian SNFs, evaluate the results of the strike, and after a few days deliver a new strike, as the surviving 80% SNF immediately (within a maximum of an hour) after the first American strike will go to the US "under its own power", after which a mutual guaranteed destruction of the United States and Russia, and at the same time, apparently, of all human civilization.
Therefore, there can be only one disarming strike that ensures the destruction of the 100% of the Russian strategic nuclear forces, almost simultaneously. And this is possible only with an absolute surprise strike, that is, Russia should learn about the fact of the strike at the moment when the first American missiles start to hit Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine strategic missile carriers (PKK CH) and strategic bombers.
Such a suddenness can be provided only by the means of aerospace attack (SVKN), which are extremely difficult to detect, and this is exactly SLCM, ALCM and B-2. Their common drawback is subsonic flight speed, which is why, for example, the Tomahawk flies to its maximum range for two hours. And the detection of even one cruise missile or one bomber immediately destroys surprise. But in the conditions of a sharp reduction in the number of Russian ICBMs and PKK SN and a very significant weakening of the air defense grouping, the blow became real, at least with the trends that were emerging 10 years ago.
Now, however, the situation has changed significantly. The number of ICBMs and SLBMs in Russia as a whole remains stable, as, on the other hand, the number of SLCMs, ALCMs and V-2s that the Navy and the US Air Force can actually use. But the air defense group of the Russian Federation has greatly increased due to the adoption of new types of radars for the radioengineering forces (RTV), anti-aircraft missile systems (air defense systems) S-400 for anti-aircraft missile forces (air defense forces), Su-35S and Su-30SM / M2, modernization of the MiG-31 interceptors in aviation, as well as by strengthening the missile attack warning system (SPRN) by commissioning a Voronezh-type radar. Under these conditions, for the United States, a disarming strike with the help of cruise missiles and B-2 is beyond the scope of what is possible. And a “quick global strike” in no way can become a substitute for this option.
The very hypersonic aircraft that should provide this blow are simply not there yet (at least in mass production and in service). But even when (and if) they appear, their carriers will be traditional ICBMs and SLBMs, or (for the X-51 rocket) B-52 bombers. That is, to deliver a “fast global strike”, Americans will have to remove nuclear warheads from ICBMs and SLBMs and install hypersonic devices instead (this in itself cannot be done quickly and unnoticed). And then you need to make a massive launch of these ICBMs and SLBMs in Russia. While all of our early warning systems (both the new Voronezhs and the old Daryals, as well as satellites in geostationary orbit) are “sharpened” to detect this massive launch. Therefore, his suddenness is absolutely excluded. In Russia, of course, it will be perceived as a nuclear strike, after which a command will be received to use all Russian strategic nuclear forces in the United States.
In the end, it’s not mutual guaranteed destruction, but one-sided suicide of the United States. After all, they, in this case, will deliver a non-nuclear strike, and Russia will respond with a nuclear one. Even if the Americans manage to destroy some part of the Russian strategic nuclear forces, most of the ICBMs and SLBMs will get to the United States guaranteed, after which this country will cease to exist just as guaranteed. Neighboring Canada and Mexico will be hit hard. The rest of civilization, including Russia, will have a hard time, but it will not perish. Moreover, the United States will not have any “spare” ICBMs and SLBMs, and even if they remain, there will be no one to install them. Accordingly, the Russian "fright" before the "fast global strike", apparently, belongs to the field of propaganda.
TAKE A GET
The same can be said about the American missile defense. She has been intimidating us for almost a decade and a half, but the United States has never created anything real, even to a full-fledged missile defense system America even further than to the “rapid global strike. The only real component of the missile defense system is the Aegis system with the Standard standard several standard modifications, but they are not designed to defeat ICBMs and SLBMs. In particular, the missile defense system with naval UVP McNUMX, which is already installed in Romania and will be installed in Poland, theoretically can not create any problems even for the most western missile divisions of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces, since no one has yet succeeded in repealing the laws of physics.
The only Russian claim to an American missile defense system in Europe that could be considered rational is that Tomahawks could theoretically be installed instead of the “Standards” in UWC McNUMX, in which case the flying time to targets in Russia would be sharply reduced . But this threat today is actually fictitious. In the ground version of the McNXX there is a total 41 cell. It is just too little. In addition, from the not yet installed Mc41 in Poland, "Tomahawks" will have to start "under the nose" of the Russian Air Defense Force in the Kaliningrad region, including one of the Voronezh-type radar stations. Therefore, suddenness becomes impossible, and the destruction of the discovered Tomahawks is not a problem. From Romania, however, it is too far to any objects of the Russian strategic nuclear forces, moreover, the missiles would have to fly past the Crimea saturated with various means of air defense.
US officials, both politicians and military, have repeatedly stated that both the “fast global strike” and the missile defense are intended against terrorist groups that can gain access to ballistic missiles and / or weapons of mass destruction, or against countries with large but archaic in organizational and technical terms, armies (such as Iran or the DPRK). To believe in these statements is difficult because, to put it mildly, the doubtfulness of such “threats” and the obvious inadequacy of such a response to them. It is partly also why so many conspiracy theories about the orientation of all this against us appear in Russia. Nevertheless, based on the practical actions of the United States, we have to admit that Washington really was guided by such a strange set of threats (at least, that was before 2014 of the year). Russia in the United States, apparently, was considered completely paralyzed in the political and economic spheres, and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation - doomed to degrade to the level of those of Iran and the DPRK, if not lower. Therefore, in fact, no one prepared to fight with her in the Pentagon.
MERCENARIES FLEE PENTAGON
The author of this article strongly disagrees with the widespread view that "Americans do not know how to fight." The American army has always been one of the best in the world, it could lead and win wars of any complexity and intensity. But in the last two or three decades, the transition to the hired principle of recruitment (“Contract or draft”, “NVO”, 27.10.17) and an orientation toward a war against a deliberately “understated” adversary in fact noticeably disfigured the US armed forces. They came to believe in the concept of a “high-tech contactless war,” in which the enemy would allow himself to be beaten without complaint and with impunity. And they began to lose the ability to wage a real war.
It’s unclear against whom, while the very costly “quick global strike” and missile defense system based on Ajisa are far from the worst options. For example, as part of the creation of this missile defense system for almost 10 years, the US Air Force tested the YAL-1 - a laser on the Boeing-747 aircraft, designed to shoot down ballistic missiles in the active part of the trajectory. This concept proved to be the height of absurdity from both the technical and the tactical side. Since there are more clever people in the USA than it is customary to think in Russia, they nonetheless realized this absurdity. In 2014, the laser plane was sent for scrap, having managed to absorb at least 5 billion Pentagon dollars.
Ten times more money was “eaten” by the MRAP (mine resistant ambush protected) class of several types of construction programs. These machines with enhanced mine protection were intended for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, almost 30 were produced. Thousands of vehicles deployed in both theaters began in 2007, when the peak of both wars was passed, the United States lost quite a bit of these machines (77 loss was officially recognized units). At the same time, Americans are rapidly getting rid of MRAPs, distributing them to everyone right and left, most often for free. It became clear that even for a very limited classical war, these machines are completely unsuitable. In today's wars in the Middle East, the armed forces of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Kurdish forces have already lost more than American-made 300 MRAPs. American armored personnel carriers M-113 in the same wars by the same armies lost half as much while practically the same number of them among the troops. M-113 was created half a century (!) Before the MRAPs, and even the Americans themselves do not consider it a masterpiece. But it was created for the classic war, so it turned out to be much more stable than new-fangled handicrafts.
However, the main combat vehicle of the US ground forces is not any of the MRARs or M-113, but the Stryker. The same vehicles are equipped with the brigades of the same name, which the American command still considers a very good compromise between the mobility of the lungs (airborne and airborne assault) and the combat power of heavy (tank and mechanized) connections. At the same time, however, the "Stryker" is an ordinary armored personnel carrier (created on the basis of the Swiss "Pirana"). It is, of course, better than MRARs and M-113s, but this car can be shot in the side even from a large-caliber machine gun. The Stryker brigade does not have any heavier armored vehicles. And if on the battlefield such a brigade meets, for example, with a tank brigade of the Korean People's Army, equipped with ancient T-62s, North Koreans of Americans, speaking football slang, "will be carried out in one gate." Moreover, the Stryker Brigade has no air defense of its own at all. As a result, it is unclear what kind of enemy it is designed for? In Iraq and Afghanistan, about 90 Strikers were lost, although the enemy had no tanks, no artillery, or aircraft. In 2014, it was on the "Strykers" that the Americans staged a clowning in Eastern Europe, pretending to "repel Russian aggression." Unfortunately, our propaganda responded to this ridicule with ritual shameful hysteria in the spirit of "NATO troops are approaching the Russian borders."
CALCULATIONS IN the air defense and navy
However, there is no need to be surprised at the lack of air defense in the Striker brigades, this is a problem of the American army as a whole.
Is it possible to imagine that the Russian ground defense is armed only with the C-300 and C-400 and Igla air defense missiles? And there is nothing intermediate - “Bukov”, “Thors”, “Tungusok”, “Armor”, not even “Wasps” and “Arrows-10”. Such an assumption is so stupid that it is not even funny. Meanwhile, the US ground defense is designed that way. It has the Patriot and THAAD SAMs (in much smaller quantities than we have C-300 and C-400), as well as Stinger MANPADS (either in the original portable version or on the Hummer chassis called Avenger "). Nothing more, and not even planned. Moreover, the TNAAD can solve only missile defense tasks (to shoot down operational-tactical missiles and medium-range ballistic missiles), it cannot even theoretically fight with aerodynamic targets. And the Patriots remained almost exclusively in the PAC3 version, also focused on missile defense. “Anti-aircraft” versions of the PAC1 and PAC2 are mainly converted into the PAC3 or sold abroad. As a result, in order to fight with airplanes and helicopters, in essence, only the Stingers remain with a range of about 8 km in range and about 4 km in height. That is, the American command is not considering the possibility that the troops could be hit by enemy aircraft. Or, he believes that American fighters will certainly cope with this aircraft. Only because fighters, in contrast to ground defense, depend on weather conditions, on the presence of airfields and fuel and lubricants on them. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that the enemy fighters will be no worse than the American ones in terms of quality and there will be no less of them. But, apparently, just this option in the Pentagon has long been excluded. What is not very reasonable, if not stronger.
The orientation on the war is unclear with whom it affected even the US Navy, which received ships of the class LCS (littoral combat ship, a ship of coastal action). As expected, a competition was organized for the best version of such a ship, to which the built according to the traditional Freedom scheme and the futuristic Independence trimaran were displayed. Friendship won in this competition (that is, lobbyists from the military-industrial complex), both ships were adopted (it used to be thought that this was possible only in the USSR). However, the choice was actually very difficult: both the Freedom and the Independence have very weak weapons at a very high price. As in the cases described above with the “fast global strike” or “Strikers”, it is completely unclear for what purposes these ships are intended and against whom they must fight. More or less, they are suitable for the role of patrol ships, but “normal” patrol ships, built mainly in Europe, are not even many times more expensive, but are orders of magnitude cheaper than both LCS variants.
IT IS NECESSARY TO LEARN FOREIGN EXPERIENCE
In this article, it is not necessary to look for gloating or, especially, hats. The US Armed Forces remain the most powerful military machine, with an understanding of the situation and political will, they may well “return to normal”. By this they are fundamentally different from the European armies, which have turned into soap bubbles, and this process has become irreversible. The point is completely different.
For the normal development of any sphere, the most thorough study of foreign experience, both positive and negative, is necessary. For the military, this is doubly important, because the country's armed forces exist to counter external threats, primarily foreign ones. Accordingly, the development of foreign armed forces provides the most important food for thought when organizing military construction in the Russian Federation.
No matter how surprising it sounds, now the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are close to the ideal. They have ceased to be an army of "Soviet-Asian type", oppressing the enemy by the masses, disregarding losses, but have not turned into a European-type soap bubble, which is an army only in name. And it is extremely important, having gone from one extreme, not to reach the other (and, unfortunately, Russia loves extremes very much).
Until recently, the Israeli Armed Forces certainly were such an ideal. With an extremely reverent attitude to the life of each serviceman, the IDF was able to wage an arbitrarily brutal contact ground war, including with a numerically superior enemy. But the Israelis too were carried away by the American "high-tech contactless" concepts, because of which the Israeli army began to deteriorate perceptibly. Evidence of which was the formally won, but in fact extremely unsuccessful war in Lebanon against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006.
In Russia, many people sincerely hate America, especially since this hatred is constantly fueled by official propaganda. At the same time, for the majority of Russians, including very many haters and propagandists, the same America remains an absolute ideal, which must be copied completely and in all aspects, including mistakes and outright nonsense.
I remember историяthat took place at the end of 40, when in the USSR, under the name of Tu-4, they copied the American “Super Fortress” B-29, which flew to the Far East in 1944 after the bombing of Japan. Tupolev, whom Stalin ordered to direct the copying, said that he could make the plane better. To which Stalin replied with an epoch-making phrase: “It’s not necessary better. Do the same. ” As a result, even an ashtray and a nest for a bottle of Coca-Cola in the dashboard were copied (although it was forbidden for Soviet pilots to fly during the flight, they had no idea about the Coca-Cola in the country), and also an accidental hole wing.
Unfortunately, there is a danger that, in the leadership of our Armed Forces, they can also believe in a “high-tech contactless war” against an uncompromising, dumb adversary, that “the war is now completely different”, that “there will never be tank battles again”, etc. . etc. Despite the fact that our budget is much smaller than the American one, therefore we cannot afford the luxury of throwing out billions on useless crafts like MEPAP and LCS ships.
It is necessary to clearly and clearly understand that the fight against terrorism is not only not the only, but also very far from the main task of the Armed Forces. Organizationally, technologically and psychologically, the army and the navy should prepare first of all for full-scale wars with two strongest potential adversaries — the US military and the renewed PLA (New Great Wall, NVO, 20.10.17). The higher our readiness for these wars, the lower the likelihood that we will ever have to wage them.