Military Review

USA: Space interceptors will not be able to stop Russian missiles

39
Experts of the American Center for Strategic and International Studies called the creation of a network of space interceptors to counter a missile attack a bad idea.


While in the United States again, there are proposals to place missile interceptors in space, analysts claim the initial inferiority of this project. And it's not even that this is a “frank” appearance. weapons in outer space, and in the inefficiency and vulnerability of such a system.

USA: Space interceptors will not be able to stop Russian missiles


According to the resource of the defense360.csis.org research center, the interceptor will be able to successfully neutralize the rocket only during its acceleration phase, which is approximately 120-170 seconds, depending on the type of missiles. But in outer space, satellites of low-altitude orbits are in motion relative to the surface of the Earth, and spacecraft launched into geostationary orbit and "hanging" motionless over one area are too far for the interceptor to affect the rocket of the enemy in the acceleration phase.

That is, to counter a rocket attack, you need a whole "constellation" of interceptors, correctly configured and covering the planet's space as much as possible, by analogy with GPS satellites. However, such an orbital group will also find it difficult to “cover” the entire territory of Russia.

To protect against multiple missiles, hundreds and thousands of interceptors will be required in orbit. “A study conducted by the American Physical Society in 2004 showed that 1664 satellite would be required to effectively reach Earth. The cost of purchasing such a system, not including development, testing, operation and maintenance, is estimated at 67-109 billions of US dollars
- remind experts.
Photos used:
rg.ru
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Herculesic
    Herculesic 25 December 2017 13: 00
    +3
    What is 109 billion dollars for you? Build, while you make a hundred, the price grows even higher.
    1. astepanov
      astepanov 25 December 2017 17: 48
      +3
      Will grow, grow. Abrasive. And solar radiation with gravity is a terrible thing. Only an umbrella (or at least a sunblock) saves from radiation. You can still launch satellites at night to the Lagrange point L4, it’s dark there. And the keyitory saves from gravity.
  2. anjey
    anjey 25 December 2017 13: 02
    +1
    while in the US there are again proposals to deploy rocket interceptors in space, analysts say the initial flaw in this project. And the point is not even that it is a question of the “frank” appearance of weapons in outer space, but of the inefficiency and vulnerability of such a system
    but millions of dollars in the pockets of enterprising dodgers .., cut M. Sam kettlebell ...., in the United States they are really gold ...
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 25 December 2017 13: 03
    +4
    Give me a mask in a row. He’ll “force” the whole cosmos now.
    1. Herculesic
      Herculesic 25 December 2017 13: 24
      +2
      From the mask and pushed the bowl-with money! Otherwise, he will teach such things - satellites and missiles will be reusable even after practical use!
  4. Vadim237
    Vadim237 25 December 2017 13: 17
    0
    "Analysts claim the initial flaw in this project." What can you say, the United States can easily launch comic interceptors based on X 37 vehicles 200 - 300 to an altitude of 200 to 1000 kilometers - carry out combat duty for years, in which case both take-off ICBMs and buses with warheads will ram - over enemy territory, the US missile defense system is aimed not at the complete destruction of all ICBMs, but at the maximum possible minimization of damage to its territory. They will not save money on this.
  5. bk316
    bk316 25 December 2017 13: 17
    +3
    Well, there is an asymmetric answer to this. Place in-orbit missiles with nuclear warheads. Thousands and a half, too, so that once every half an hour they fly over any major US city. From the start to the defeat of the object, if you fly into the gravity well, 50 seconds will pass.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 25 December 2017 15: 13
      0
      There is not enough money for this.
    2. Sands Careers General
      Sands Careers General 25 December 2017 15: 51
      +6
      Russia (Yes, and the USSR) has an orbital weapon, which may well bring down satellites.
  6. Egorovich
    Egorovich 25 December 2017 13: 21
    +2
    SOI-2 seems to be wanted in mattress, the fear of Russian missiles is very large.
  7. Old26
    Old26 25 December 2017 13: 25
    0
    In general, nothing new. The second concert series entitled "Strategic Defense Initiative". It's just not entirely clear whose appetites are growing. Those who want to have this system, or "experts." In principle, the Star Wars (SDI) program had such a subsystem as interceptors with missile weapons in orbit. True, then the required number of them with three to four times as many Soviet carriers was about four times less than now. According to the then program, they were satellites that carried dozens of small missiles with a homing system. The EMNIP program was called “Diamond Papers. Well, 1664 satellites are how many can be cut. I don’t think that then designers were more stupid than modern ones and settled on the number of satellites about 400-450
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 25 December 2017 13: 31
      +1
      "1664 satellites" ///

      1664 is, if I understood correctly, to block the whole Earth.
      And to block a certain area 24 hours a day, where the enemy
      based ICBMs or infantry fighting systems, so much is not necessary. Is a couple of dozen enough?
      For example, we need to specifically block Iran. We’ll hang 10-20 in low orbit
      and we will periodically replace them as they leave orbit.
      1. Alexey-74
        Alexey-74 25 December 2017 13: 35
        +1
        try .... as the famous character said - "we will see ....."
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 25 December 2017 13: 41
          +1
          We will see ... recourse
          One thing is for sure. BR, which flies up and in space, must be beaten from above.
          And do not suffer to intercept from below, overcoming the force of gravity
          and atmospheric resistance. What takes both precious time and all the fuel.
          1. cormorant
            cormorant 25 December 2017 16: 00
            +1
            So what? First rockets will fly to demolish your space constellation. Then the ICBMs start.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 25 December 2017 16: 02
              +1
              "First rockets will fly to demolish your space constellation" ///

              And they, that - bewitched by a shaman from a blow from above? smile
              1. Arzoo
                Arzoo 25 December 2017 23: 19
                0
                Blessed is he who believes. And what prevents Iran from acquiring a submarine fleet, using the DPRK as an example?
                voyaka uh, it seems to you, or some other Jew, wrote a year ago. Only the complete military defeat of Iran and the subsequent occupation will save you.
      2. amr
        amr 25 December 2017 13: 52
        0
        so it is the Americans who are preparing a program for you)))

        if in the context against Iran, or what other "non-liking country", it seems that there are not many, only if they could still be hung, and after being thrown to another front, but will this work against the Papuans? not?
        although schA and the Papuans can throw a couple of barrels of nails at the geostationary .....
        ... I think right now, the Papuans need to start the defense from this, the current came to them, democracy knocked, two cars of nails immediately into the sky !!! and then wave your sticks!
      3. CAT BAIYUN
        CAT BAIYUN 25 December 2017 18: 07
        +5
        We’ll hang 10-20 in low orbit
        and we will periodically replace them as they leave orbit

        laughing
        After all, you deign to dwell in Israel?
        Well ... And where is this pathos: We, hang, we will .. laughing
        Your destiny is to drive the Palestinians with frenzy, to bombard the territories of neighboring states as prophylaxis, to sing songs about how everyone dislikes you and to create tension in the region. Do you hope that they will steer?
        It's unlikely ... There are enough of their greedy mouths.
      4. bk316
        bk316 26 December 2017 11: 59
        +2
        We’ll hang 10-20 in low orbit
        and we will periodically replace them as they leave orbit.

        I have already written an asymmetric answer: Place missiles with nuclear warheads in orbit. Thousands and a half, too, so that once every half an hour they fly over any major US city.

        Try to bring them down, from the bottom to the top - you won’t have time. Try to cover the positional area - it simply does not exist.
  8. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 25 December 2017 13: 36
    0
    SOI - continued. Oh and do not give star wars to the Pentagon .....
  9. anjey
    anjey 25 December 2017 14: 32
    0
    for example, we need to specifically block Iran. We’ll hang 10-20 in low orbit
    and we will periodically replace them as they leave orbit.
    it’s not bad to dream, the State Department will not pull, if each state wants to have its own satellite constellation, it will burst ...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 25 December 2017 15: 11
      +1
      What does the State Department have to do with it? Israel makes satellites very well,
      launches into low orbit, too, on Shavit, our rocket.
      It remains to place a laser or some kind of "shooter" on the satellites
      for kinetic disc. Get to the 1st step of the take-off
      missiles are not easy - time is short. But there is nothing unreal.
  10. Old26
    Old26 25 December 2017 14: 36
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    "Analysts claim the initial flaw in this project." What can you say, the United States can easily launch comic interceptors based on X 37 vehicles 200 - 300 to an altitude of 200 to 1000 kilometers - carry out combat duty for years, in which case both take-off ICBMs and buses with warheads will ram - over enemy territory, the US missile defense system is aimed not at the complete destruction of all ICBMs, but at the maximum possible minimization of damage to its territory. They will not save money on this.

    And what will it give? Using the X-37 as a battering ram is like chopping nuts, for example, with some kind of jewelry masterpiece of the past. 200-300 devices are sorry, projection. They are not so cheap devices to use them as a ram on the one hand, and on the other hand to launch 200-300 pieces. In addition, he did not fly into orbit of apogee for more than 420 km (I can’t say anything during the fifth flight, but the previous 4 were on the NOU). And you are going to shoot him for 1000 km.
    In addition, ram the rocket - well, you have to try very hard so that in those two minutes, it’s not only to detect the starting rocket itself - but it will take 20-30 seconds, but also to activate one of these X-37s, which is unknown at what height its trajectory will be. Accurately aiming and dispersing it is something. And getting into the energetically maneuvering “bus” is generally from a series of fiction.
    Most likely, if we are talking about interceptors now, then about some kind of reincarnation of the food program from Star Wars (SDI)
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 25 December 2017 15: 15
      +1
      "Use X-37 as a battering ram" ////

      Why not use it as a carrier for weapon satellites?
      In case of aggravation of the situation, he throws them into orbits. Corrects their orbits.
      Collects malfunctioning.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 25 December 2017 18: 08
        +1
        A load of 900 kilograms will not be enough.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 25 December 2017 15: 37
      0
      Well, neither X 37 itself — but a drone-rocket, an ICBM takes off within 170 seconds, if they make a turbojet engine with acceleration up to 30 Machs, then the probable radius of interception for the device will be 1632 kilometers, launch detection systems will be engaged in SPRN systems, ground-based radars, satellites with IR cameras , they will also report the coordinates of the ICBM take-off to the drone - rammer, he only needs to quickly fly, 170 seconds, to the take-off area, and then the GOS will capture the ICBM target - ramming into or out. Such a device itself will cost 80 million, additional satellites 10 billion, launching the device into orbit of 70 million - everything about everything 70 - 90 billion, and this is ten years of work. Their budget will pull.
  11. anjey
    anjey 25 December 2017 16: 07
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    What does the State Department have to do with it? Israel makes satellites very well,
    launches into low orbit, too, on Shavit, our rocket.
    It remains to place a laser or some kind of "shooter" on the satellites
    for kinetic disc. Get to the 1st step of the take-off
    missiles are not easy - time is short. But there is nothing unreal.

    Quote: voyaka uh
    What does the State Department have to do with it? Israel makes satellites very well,
    launches into low orbit, too, on Shavit, our rocket.
    It remains to place a laser or some kind of "shooter" on the satellites
    for kinetic disc. Get to the 1st step of the take-off
    missiles are not easy - time is short. But there is nothing unreal.

    buy herring in the bazaar and powder it .. at least the tail, though the head, the satellite is not the same as the rocket launcher, you don’t have full-fledged military satellites, you have a laser but it’s more experienced than a combat one, and let Jules Vern send it to space, before that how to goose beijing ...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 25 December 2017 17: 30
      0
      Well, we don’t swing the crews to the moon sad (Russia, too, by the way),
      and in low orbits, small satellites - quietly. And study, study.
      Are you a herring lover, as I understand it? smile
  12. Lena Petrova
    Lena Petrova 25 December 2017 17: 51
    0
    +++ estimated at 67-109 billion US dollars +++
    Our money placed in their bonds should be enough.
  13. VladimirNET
    VladimirNET 25 December 2017 18: 07
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    And they, that - bewitched by a shaman from a blow from above? smile

    Judging by what was reported back in Soviet times: this SDI will be demolished from the ground, because Since then, the laws of physics have not changed.

    PS. There are “one hundred wagons” on the ground of these anti-aircraft missiles, so no matter how much they are thrown into space (for hitting from above), there will be _ much_ more_ below (for hitting below).
    Therefore, even if we assume the defeat of 100% of the rockets from above from the first hit, then just the rockets in space will end earlier,
    all the more so, given the dispersal of military objects in space.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 25 December 2017 23: 32
      +1
      "On the land of these air defense missiles" one hundred wagons "" ////

      There are not so many missiles that can hit the satellite and they are very expensive.
      It seems that the S-500 will be able to do this when it is adopted. And the Aegis system missiles.
      But I will not argue here. The whole layout is very hypothetical.
      I just assume that in the future missile defense will go to satellites.
  14. Old26
    Old26 25 December 2017 18: 59
    0
    Quote: cormorant
    So what? First rockets will fly to demolish your space constellation. Then the ICBMs start.

    Talk nonsense. At the same time, to demolish the satellite constellation of the other side still will not work. The very first strike on the satellite constellation will lead to the launch of carriers from the other side. So whether the ICBMs will start after the strike or not, it doesn’t matter. World War III will be in full swing ...

    Quote: Vadim237
    Well, neither X 37 itself - but a drone-rocket.

    Then, I apologize, I did not understand why you dragged the X-37 to the same in the amount of 200-300 pieces in orbit? Using the X-37 to launch a missile block with anti-ballistic missiles into orbit is also hardly realistic. The payload of the X-37 is 900 kg, the mass of such a missile unit-gun will probably be more. Not to mention the dimensions.

    Quote: Vadim237
    ICBM takes off within 170 seconds if they make a turbojet engine with acceleration to 30 Machs

    Well, for about 35 years there have been ICBMs with an out-time of 180 seconds. 25 years - as with a time of 150 seconds. And already about 15 years, as with the time a little over 120 seconds.

    Quote: Vadim237
    Well, neither X 37 itself — but a drone-rocket, an ICBM takes off within 170 seconds, if they make a turbojet engine with an acceleration of up to 30 Machs, then the probable radius of interception for the device will be 1632 kilometers, launch detection systems will be engaged in SPRN systems, ground-based radars, satellites with IR cameras , they will also report the coordinates of the ICBM take-off to the drone - rammer, he only needs to quickly fly, 170 seconds before the take-off area,

    The biggest problem is placing these ram-drones so that they are within reach of the launch rocket. If a rocket follows a classical ballistic trajectory, such an option is possible, but if it follows a quasi-ballistic one, when it does not rise, for example, above 80 km, how then?

    Quote: Vadim237
    onward, the GOS will capture the target of the ICBM - ramming it in pursuit or towards. .

    Can you imagine what engines should be on such a rocket-interceptor-ram to hit the target "car"? Most likely not

    Quote: anjey
    you do not have full military satellites

    Well, actually, before declaring this, it would be worth reading some information about Israeli intelligence satellites for a change ..
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 25 December 2017 22: 00
      0
      An ordinary liquid-propellant rocket engine is enough, in the second stage to catch up. If ICBMs fly at an altitude of 80 kilometers, they will become an excellent target for missile defense. Therefore, now they will take off along a more elongated trajectory in order to circumvent missile defense - in height.
  15. Prutkov
    Prutkov 25 December 2017 19: 23
    0
    [quote] [/ quote] In addition, ram the rocket - well, you have to try very hard to not only find the starting rocket in those two minutes, but it will take 20-30 seconds, but also put one of these X- 37, which is unknown at what altitude its trajectory will be. Accurately aiming and dispersing it is something. And getting into the energetically maneuvering "bus" is generally from a series of fiction [quote]
    And if you add to the launch of ICBMs more bogus missiles, launched along with ICBMs, then there will be more problems with interception. Such deceptive missiles can be collected from decommissioned ICBMs.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 December 2017 13: 14
      0
      "From decommissioned ICBMs." - It’s only necessary to withdraw from the START treaty, since this is already essentially a carrier of warheads.
      1. Prutkov
        Prutkov 26 December 2017 22: 11
        0
        Americans are not particularly concerned about such problems. They themselves use separate steps under the "target". So Russia can make the first step a "target". Yes, and the START treaty will soon order a long life.
  16. anjey
    anjey 25 December 2017 20: 13
    0
    Quote: anjey
    you do not have full military satellites
    Well, actually, before declaring such a thing, for a change, it would be worth reading some information about Israeli times above the satellite
    I didn’t mean their similar trifle, it was just announced about combat satellites with laser weapons on board, so I had to send to Jules Verne ...
  17. Old26
    Old26 25 December 2017 22: 40
    +1
    Quote: Rods
    And if you add to the launch of ICBMs still bogus missiles, launched along with ICBMs

    There are no fake missiles, as there are no extra mines to launch such missiles. And we, and if they do not eliminate every missile removed from the database in the presence of inspectors, then we present the "remains" of the missiles to the other side. The mines are wrecked, for example the removal of the protective device, and then the mine is wrecked by the explosion of the tip