Military Review

Pentagon: mine-based anti-missiles are capable of intercepting "a small number" of ICBMs

21
Mine-based anti-missiles, which are one of the main components of the US missile defense system, are able to protect the country from the "small number" of ICBM, reports TASS data report prepared by the new director of the Office of Operational Testing and Evaluation at the Pentagon, Major General Retired Robert Beyler.


Pentagon: mine-based anti-missiles are capable of intercepting "a small number" of ICBMs


The document states that mine-based anti-missiles, for the development and deployment of which $ 36 billion were spent, “demonstrated the ability to protect the US from a small number of ICBMs and intermediate-range ballistic missiles launched using“ simple countermeasures to counter their interception ”.

According to the Washington Examiner newspaper, these estimates are “more optimistic” than those contained in previous reports by the Office. Previously, they stressed that "mine-based anti-missiles have limited capabilities" to protect the country from ICBMs.

According to media reports, today "in Alaska and in California it is stationed in the 44 interceptor mines intended to destroy warheads in the middle segment of the flight path." The military leadership has requested funds for the deployment of more 28 similar three-stage antimissiles.

Beyler's conclusions are largely based on the first successful tests of such antimissiles from the 2014 of the year conducted at the end of May last year. Before that, there were several unsuccessful attempts to intercept the target outside the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, many military experts, in particular, the head of the organization “Cut Swords to Plowshares” Joseph Cirincione, are still confident that “with a real threat, the US missile defense system is unlikely to be effective, since the enemy can launch not one but several missiles "or will resort to countermeasures, for example, to the use of false warheads.
Photos used:
defensenews.com
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alex-a832
    Alex-a832 25 January 2018 13: 07 New
    +2
    Oh, it turned out that the Pentagon’s budget is too small! It doesn’t reach a trillion; Saw, Shura, Saw!
    1. ul_vitalii
      ul_vitalii 25 January 2018 13: 19 New
      +6
      They are waiting for the ICBMs, and a bunch of warheads will arrive, it really doesn’t seem enough.
  2. NEXUS
    NEXUS 25 January 2018 13: 11 New
    +3
    Mine-based missiles, which are one of the main components of the US missile defense system, are capable of protecting the country from a "small number" of ICBMs,

    I'm interested in protecting against which particular missiles? When will Rubezh and Sarmat take up duty, what will NATO experts then set forth?
    1. novel66
      novel66 25 January 2018 13: 15 New
      +2
      that "are able to protect from a limited number of mbr ... one - two, no more .."
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 25 January 2018 13: 16 New
        +3
        Quote: novel xnumx
        that "are able to protect from a limited number of mbr ... one - two, no more .."

        Well, if they use the same tactics as we do on Amur (A-135), namely, the destruction of a swarm of enemy warheads in space with a nuclear explosion, then you need to look at how many such anti-missiles they have ...
        1. novel66
          novel66 25 January 2018 13: 18 New
          +1
          yes no there like “hit that kill” - kinetics
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 25 January 2018 13: 20 New
            +3
            Quote: novel xnumx
            yes no there like “hit that kill” - kinetics

            If so, then they will not intercept missiles, but warheads, which in the same Governor with false ones, if sclerosis doesn’t fail me, there can be about 30 pieces (I may be wrong in the figure)
            1. novel66
              novel66 25 January 2018 13: 23 New
              +2
              this, in fact, is not a shield. and so. sieve budget development
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 25 January 2018 13: 28 New
                +3
                Quote: novel xnumx
                this, in fact, is not a shield. and so. sieve budget development

                And they don’t really need them ... the bulk of the missile defense is based on ships. Now EuroPRO has been added ... why is EuroPRO necessary? Reduce the load on the missile defense systems that they have on ships, since, in fact, the US fleets navigate the seas and oceans with an eye on their shores because of this. And the massive lightning disarming strike, which is massive because of this, is incapable of delivering, because you have to bare your shores.
                1. max702
                  max702 25 January 2018 14: 03 New
                  0
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Why is EuroPRO necessary?

                  To circumvent the arrangements of the RMND ..
  3. aszzz888
    aszzz888 25 January 2018 13: 16 New
    +1
    Burst another Pentagon Hollywood! laughing
    1. novel66
      novel66 25 January 2018 13: 20 New
      +1
      so much dough buried in the ground lol
      1. aszzz888
        aszzz888 25 January 2018 13: 26 New
        +1
        ... campaign, while they have Alaska, there are no problems with paper ...
  4. Gray brother
    Gray brother 25 January 2018 13: 20 New
    +3
    As far as I remember, these missiles defend US missile bases, of which there are only three, and not "US territory."
  5. Egorovich
    Egorovich 25 January 2018 13: 28 New
    +2
    laughing Not only Russian news is good, but sometimes it blows good from the mattress. Now UN will sleep even more calmly, having learned that from the DPRK missiles the mattress has little antidote. laughing
  6. Alex-a832
    Alex-a832 25 January 2018 13: 38 New
    +1
    The devils are striped and did not think about a real nuclear threat to their island. Under the guise of a missile defense, the ring of installations for the INF missiles around Russia was pulled together, and then suddenly a reckless Eun appeared in the rear. And after all, a vigorous Korean hello can really fly in! On this occasion, ask Congress for a couple of trillions: the safety of the exceptional is a sacred thing!
  7. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 25 January 2018 13: 43 New
    0
    Yeah, they have a small military budget ..... you need to throw a couple more billion .........
  8. Old26
    Old26 25 January 2018 14: 30 New
    +1
    Quote: NEXUS
    Mine-based missiles, which are one of the main components of the US missile defense system, are capable of protecting the country from a "small number" of ICBMs,

    I'm interested in protecting against which particular missiles? When will Rubezh and Sarmat take up duty, what will NATO experts then set forth?

    Andrew! As usual, a retiree "reveals" an open secret for the people (the world community). In principle, they started talking about this almost immediately after leaving the ABM Treaty. The point is that even the existing missile defense system, which covered only one of the missile bases, could intercept a limited number of targets. But the missile defense was exactly there HUNDRED pieces.
    There are no miracles. At the time, it was the conclusion of a treaty on missile defense that reduced the pace of the arms race, since it is much easier to “stop” the missile defense system, than vice versa, by reducing the number of warheads that broke through the missile defense system. I repeat again - Wonders do not happen. Our missile defense system around Moscow could intercept EMNIP SIXTEEN paired targets, that is, the total number of intercepted targets is THIRTY TWO.

    Absolutely the same situation with the Americans. Whether they want it or not, but NEVER the probability of hitting targets does not reach unity. The probability that the now deployed American interceptors reaches EMNIP or 0,8, whether 0,85 allows you to intercept the target by spending 3-4 interceptor missiles on it. And this provided that they will be launched missiles, in their performance characteristics similar to those of North Korea. That is, a warhead and a maximum combat level.
    If, however, missiles such as even modern Yars are launched on them, not to mention the aging Voivode, then all they have enough interceptors for is to intercept the combat equipment of a pair of Yars or one Voivode. All. ABM, by and large, is a system designed for one thing - STILL POPULATION their country. It’s almost impossible to scare the enemy’s population (well, unless the media regularly carries complete nonsense.

    For example, only for example, the current missile defense system GBI able to intercept, for example 10-12 "simple" goals. Let it be absolutely naked, without means of overcoming missile defense our missiles. Such, of course, have already existed for several decades, but let them be. So the question is asked. Which is easier to deploy. Yet 5-10 intercontinental missiles or else 20-40 interceptors???? It was the limitation under the agreement of 100 interceptors that stopped the uncontrolled arms race. Otherwise, at the beginning of the 80s, both sides would not have had 2000–2500 thousand land and sea-based missiles each, but would have “dispersed” to 10 thousand or so, or maybe more.

    So, finally, even the retirees are beginning to tell the truth. Even the use of multiply charged kinetic interceptors does not essentially solve the problem. Even for this there is no need to wait. when new ones enter. Any PRO system is NOT ABLE to stop a MASSED ICBM strike of another country, especially if the other side has developed missile defense systems and multi-headed combat equipment. So that they don’t speak on this subject ...

    Quote: novel xnumx
    that "are able to protect from a limited number of mbr ... one - two, no more .."

    If ours - it can really protect against 1-2, if from North Korean - well, with a dozen to a dozen

    Quote: NEXUS
    Quote: novel xnumx
    that "are able to protect from a limited number of mbr ... one - two, no more .."

    Well, if they use the same tactics as we do on Amur (A-135), namely, the destruction of a swarm of enemy warheads in space with a nuclear explosion, then you need to look at how many such anti-missiles they have ...

    Andrew! The last missile defense system equipped with nuclear warheads was the "Seyfgard" system. early to mid 70s. Now none of the American interceptors has a special warhead. I.e "thin out" swarm "comrades accompanying the warhead" о
    nor just CAN NOT. The number of such missiles they have is 0,00000 ....

    Quote: aszzz888
    Burst another Pentagon Hollywood! laughing

    And he was not. It’s just that our media have artificially inflated this bubble for decades, scaring primarily the average man. It is simply beneficial with a predictable response from the population.
    Exactly the same effect from the marine missile defense system based on STANDARD missiles - only medium-range missiles can intercept. THAAD is the same. No matter how funny it sounds, but the Americans spoke and are telling the truth, saying that their missile defense in Europe is not against us. Funny, but true nonetheless.

    Quote: Gray Brother
    As far as I remember, these missiles defend US missile bases, of which there are only three, and not "US territory."

    Both right and wrong at the same time. Under the old ABM treaty, the ABM system could protect the capital and one of the bases (according to the additional protocol of 1974, only the capital or base). The new system, which in the newspapers with the American filing began to be called the global missile defense system (by the way, we also liked to call it that) is essentially just a national missile defense system (NMD). Moreover, the system does not cover the entire territory of the United States, but closes only the northern and western directions (through the joint venture or the Pacific Ocean). For the system to be fully national, the Americans had to deploy at least TWO POSITION PRO PROVISIONS in the United States and one in Poland. One in Alaska and California, and one on the East Coast. The average number of interceptor missiles in this position area is HUNDRED (in Poland - 10). What do we have now
    1. The first position area (Alaska and California). FOR FY 2018, it is planned to bring the number of interceptors at these two bases to numbers FORTY FOUR. Four are already in California; an additional 4 more launchers are planned to be deployed in Alaska. And that instead STA MISSILE INTERCEPTORS.
    2. The second position area (East Coast). The project is shoved in a long box. And it seems so long that it will never be deployed
    3. The third position area - Poland. A large and bold cross has been placed on this position area. What they are planning there is the deployment of a missile defense system to intercept medium-range missiles. which could threaten northwestern Europe.

    ALL. Instead of 210 interceptors - 44. That's the whole price of the US global missile defense system. If they can intercept medium-range missiles with a layered missile defense, then intercepting ICBMs is possible not just limited, but very limited
    1. corporal
      corporal 25 January 2018 17: 53 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      No matter how funny it sounds, but the Americans spoke and are telling the truth, saying that their missile defense in Europe is not against us. Funny, but true nonetheless.

      Then why are our panics? Already on ̶г̶о̶в̶ ... the protests plagued. what
  9. Fkjydjckfrgh
    Fkjydjckfrgh 25 January 2018 15: 05 New
    0
    since the enemy can launch not one but several missiles at once
    The cunning of the enemy knows no bounds. They are going to fight with the year 1957?
  10. Old26
    Old26 25 January 2018 19: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Corporal
    Quote: Old26
    No matter how funny it sounds, but the Americans spoke and are telling the truth, saying that their missile defense in Europe is not against us. Funny, but true nonetheless.

    Then why are our panics? Already on ̶г̶о̶в̶ ... the protests plagued. what

    The ways of the authorities (politicians), as well as the ways of the Lord are inscrutable. When they “pump it up”, the population gradually begins to believe in what they are told. You know, Goebbels seems to have had the expression "The greater the lie, the faster they will believe it." When they say to you several times a day from the media that these damned Americans are launching their missile defense system so that our missiles can be shot down almost 2 minutes after the launch, they will not believe once, two, and the third time a doubt creeps in - “What if it’s true.” .. As a result, the predicted response of the population. It even reaches the point that the military are beginning to PR in this area, and not those who are no longer serving, but those who are acting. And, quite seriously, they begin to broadcast that our rocket will fly for 3 minutes and that’s all, khan, they will knock it on take-off. And do not care for such a "comrade storyteller" that the active portion of the trajectory of this missile can be 50 seconds less. And that after 3 minutes the missile no longer exists, but there are already a bunch of warheads and false targets that can no longer be shot down with one interceptor. Or that there will be this missile (its parts) at such a distance from the missile defense that it simply does not physically reach this point. But it broadcasts anyway. And when the general speaks about this once, twice, third, the majority begin to believe ... That's all.