The shabby British lion: "Go away, old fallen cat!" (h.1)
Causes of Mental Illness Exacerbation in London
The current gala concert of the fashionable British comedian group "Teresa and Boris" with songs about the Skripal traitor cruelly poisoned with combat poison A-232 Novice-5 has pretty much merry the inhabitants of our God-dedicated Fatherland. This Skripal and his daughter turned out to be relatives of Duncan MacLeod, who is from the Clan MacLeod and who will remain only one. Because only an immortal mountaineer could have survived after the application of CWA, as reported, is 8 times more poisonous than VX or VR (P-33), moreover, it is practically not amenable to neutralization. Subsequent speeches about the "ultimatum" and "hard answer", I believe, could argue with the best works of residents of the Comedy Club, including low-key. But analysts name different reasons for such inadequate behavior of the British leadership.
For example, the thesis that the British cover up internal problems with the scandal with the "immortal highlander" Skrypalem is very popular. Here are the consequences of Brexit, and the grandiose criminal pedophile scandal, and the internal political "struggle of the Nanai boys" among British politicians. It is possible, and even likely, that all these reasons played a role to some extent. Someone thought that all this hysteria was started with the aim of defaulting Russia almost with the aim of justifying a possible strike against Syria - not without that, but this was hardly the main goal. Considering the tough statements that have already been voiced from the very top of the military-political leadership of the Russian Federation, which do not allow double interpretation in general, it is clear that in response the RF Armed Forces can be very painful to knock - and then story with the traitor hovering between life and death, it will become quite petty and insignificant.
Traditional British Russophobia, expressed by Lord Palmerston as the phrase “how bad it is to live when no one is fighting with Russia,” also has a place to be. And a lot of "complexes of a small country", once the former powerful and strong, you can still call them phantom pain. They were an "empire, over which the sun never sets," and it was quite recently - until the 40-50-s. Hhv. And after that, they quickly became just a great power, even if it was led by the United States, but possessed quite decent military, military-technical and military-political capabilities and competencies. And in a very short period of time, about 15 years, Britain has lost them, becoming a typical European dwarf, even if it is the closest fish-sticky American shark. The only difference between the British Armed Forces, for example, from the German one, is the presence of a small amount of nuclear weaponsand it’s not all clear with him. But here is an understanding of where the hearth that this cricket should know, apparently, is not. And phantom pains of the disappeared power periodically push for the desire to play a “more important role” in the world, one of the consequences of which is the current exacerbation of paranoia in London.
After Brexit, Teresa May and Boris Johnson came up with the idea of Global Britain. They say that it is a free and independent from the EU, Britain should play a leading role in Europe, leading European herds of lost sheep to a virtual battle with "Putin's Russia." And even better in the world to regain the leading position - dream Teresa and Boris. Political manilovshchina pure, almost like the Kiev junta with their eternal "mriyami" on any issue. The fact is that such "Wishlist" must be supported by appropriate strength. And with her problems.
Underdone relics
Let us examine in more detail the issue of British nuclear power (or, rather, relics, and not imperishable, but underdone). In the past, the British had both tactical and strategic nuclear and thermonuclear bombs, and cruise missiles with a Blue Steele (very primitive, but quite consistent with the level of 60's technology) of their design, and the bombers — that is, there was no “triad”, but The arsenal was quite versatile and the carriers had their own. Moreover, I must say that the family of medium nuclear bombers, called "V-bombers" - Vickers Valiant, Handley-Page Victor and Avro Vulcan, were original and very remarkable cars for their time, especially the latter.
But the submarine-based ballistic missiles never gave birth to their own, and they failed to create their MRBDs, so they relied on submarine missile carriers. Who developed with the help of American specialists and based on the Lafayette-type SSBN project, first arming their first SSBN of the “Resolution” SLBM “Polaris A-3” without MS, which the British put on their own, and then later upgraded to HSRHIN modified “Polaris” A-3ТК "with low power 6 combat units (BB). By the way, the British themselves denied that the boat was developed with the help of the United States, except, say, the missile compartment, which was American, but common features, however, are visible.
But gradually, the British rolled up all of their nuclear components, eventually leaving only SSBNs, which are Vanguard-type ships with the D5 American Trident-2 substitute for the SLBM. The 4 SSRB type "Vanguard" focuses the entire nuclear potential of the country, more precisely, its remnants. Now the operational readiness of the British 120 BB design with the maximum power up to 80-100act (together with the exchange and repair fund of charges a little more, about the 160 - but nothing more). The D5 SLBMs themselves do not belong to the Britons, the Americans rent 56 missiles (more precisely, already a little less than 50, after all, there were also combat training launches). The serial numbers of the missiles are not spelled out in the contract, it’s just a question of quantity, if Americans are required for technical reasons, they change the rocket for another - in general, this is a “car-sharing” rocket. Moreover, the missiles remain the property of the United States, and according to the START-3 Treaty, the Americans inform us about the charges of others' charges, which fundamentally contradicts the British practice of hiding information of the already insignificant nuclear secrets of the kingdom and strongly enrages London, but nothing can be done about it. On the whole, it is a strange situation, when a nuclear power does not have its own carriers either, and it’s hard to say who actually owns the country's nuclear missile potential.
But even the 56 SLBM would not even be enough to complete all the 4 missile carriers (each 16 silo PU). But this is not what the Britons need - they have only 1 SSBNs on duty at the same time, 1 is still in dock repair, that is, it does not need missiles, 1 is preparing for a hike, and 1 is carrying out post-breakdown service and repairs. The SSBN on duty in the sea carries an incomplete set of missiles for some time - instead of 16 submarines only 8, and only 5's warheads on a rocket, that is, 40 BB - this is all that all the Royal Cavalry has, as a means of retaliation. In general, it is comparable with the potentials of third-tier nuclear powers, such as India, Pakistan, and the DPRK. Theoretically, one of the SSBNs that are on pre-preparatory training could have been involved in the first strike, but there is no counter or counter-strike for the British - there is no anti-missile attack, and even if the signal comes from the Americans, it is likely that it will be too late.
RGCHIN developed by the British can carry 6 BB (theoretically and up to 8), that is, the maximum ammunition of this type of SSBN 96-128 BB. Moreover, part of the BB is in the minimum power configuration (blocks of variable power up to 150ct at the maximum), to compensate for the complete absence of TNW as a class, and to tie up the conflict. Nuclear doctrine involves the application of warning shocks of low power, including demonstration. Only here the idea of placing a reduced power BB on an SLBM to compensate for a lack of TNW is idiotic. The problem is that the enemy, as soon as it detects a launch of an SLBM, will not wait until it arrives (where it arrives - it will know approximately already in the first minutes, and with accuracy to hundreds of meters - a little later) and observe what kind of power it will explosion. He will simply give the command to deliver a massive nuclear missile strike on Britain itself - and the BB will fly in response, certainly not of low power. After all, it is known that the SSBN on patrol is one and the BBs on the rockets are of different and different capacities, so why risk it?
Patrol SSBN type "Vanguard" in the Bay of Biscay, where in 2009. one of them (in fact, it was the ancestor of the type) ran into the French Triomfan SSBN and almost fell under the cancellation - both countries use Biscayka as a “bastion” of their strategic nuclear forces. Also, not so long ago, ideas were put forward to carry out military service by the British and French SSBNs in turn, protecting them together - of course, from lack of money, but this did not end with anything - 2014 arrived on time, tank reflect the army of the Russian Federation, which are preparing to enslave Europe, where can I save on matches? True, they continue to save, but on the other.
All royal cavalry, all royal army
With conventional military power, the situation is no better. The number of the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom (so far) is 153 thousand people. The British had never been particularly strong and numerous ground troops, though we recall von Bismarck, who joked that the British army that landed on the coast would order his police to simply arrest. But now the British land power has almost reached the bottom. The number of British NE 81 thous. in regular composition (of course, we are talking about the regular number, the actual smaller). There are two divisions - in fact, not connections, but administrative structures. The NW - 11 combat brigades, as well as brigades of support - on 1 artillery, engineering, reconnaissance and surveillance, medical, military police, logistics, on 2 - supply, communications. There is also a helicopter command, an air defense command, and various other units, in particular, three "regiments" (battalions) of infantry, stationed in the remnants of the British overseas possessions and marines. And, of course, the forces of special operations, in particular, the 22 regiment of the SAS (the other two regiments were transferred to the brigade of intelligence and observation).
SV are divided into "Reaction Force", designed for immediate use, including abroad - 3 tank brigades, tanks, BMP and other tracked vehicles, combined with the brigade MTO 3-th division, and 1 airmobile It is clear that “immediate” is very different from our or American notions of rapid deployment and levels of readiness, but it fits well into the unhurried norms of the alliance, where a consolidated light brigade is assembled for 5 days and larger forces in a few weeks.
Tank brigades should rather be translated as mechanized (as they used to be called), because translating Armored Infantry as "armored infantry" sounds to us, Russians, like a jumble. They consist of 2 tank "regiments" (in the reality of battalions) and 2 motorized infantry "regiments". There are also “flexible forces” (Adaptable Force) united in the 1 Division, intended mainly for the defense of Britain itself — the 7 infantry brigades on various wheeled armored vehicles, in particular MRAP and other equipment, which is suitable for traveling along rear roads but not suitable for combat. They are partly equipped with reservists. Of the other features of the construction of the SV, it can be noted that all the artillery of the tank, the infantry brigades, is concentrated in a separate artillery brigade, also consisting of 9 "regiments" (divisions), and it is inconvenient to manage such a structure. And from the artillery brigade, artillery is attached to combat brigades, which will necessarily cause problems with interaction and control.
Moreover, the current structure is not final. So, soon, instead of 3, tank brigades in the 3 division will have 2 mechanized and 2 "drums", and the total number of battalions will not change, just the brigade will facilitate. "Shock" is on BRM and other Ajax family machines (nee - ASCOD-2 from BAE), healthy and poorly protected 39-42 machines, which are now actively promoted as a new achievement by the British industry. And they are just as actively criticized for the high price tag, and for the large mass, dimensions, and weak weaponry and protection.
Techniques in the British army, in general, are no more than those of other military dwarfs, in which the armies of Germany, France, and other European "grandees of bygone times" degenerated. Thus, tanks "Challenger-2" in combat units, there are 162, just about 200. Frankly, this tank, even against the background of the Leopard-2, which turned out to be of little use in battle, looks rather pale - heavy, slow-moving, with a lot of flaws in protection, with an archaic weapon. Plans for its modernization have not come into being for the first decade, but nothing large-scale is being undertaken - usually everything depends on lack of funds or unwillingness to make large-scale changes, such as replacing the archaic 120mm rifled L30 gun with a smooth-bore Rh120. Now announced another tender on this topic.
There are about 400 BMP "Warrior" (here they started recently modernization can be considered successful), in the ranks, though not all, part of the storage. As well as more than 3 thousand different light armored vehicles such as BTR and MRAPs, more than 250 SAU, MLRS and towed howitzers (more than half - 105-mm light howitzers), less than a hundred combat helicopters, including the American 50 percussion "Apache". The worst thing is not the technology itself, but rather its very low technical readiness typical of the current European NATO countries. And the level of technical serviceability can hardly please the generals of the British General Staff.
To be continued ...
The current gala concert of the fashionable British comedian group "Teresa and Boris" with songs about the Skripal traitor cruelly poisoned with combat poison A-232 Novice-5 has pretty much merry the inhabitants of our God-dedicated Fatherland. This Skripal and his daughter turned out to be relatives of Duncan MacLeod, who is from the Clan MacLeod and who will remain only one. Because only an immortal mountaineer could have survived after the application of CWA, as reported, is 8 times more poisonous than VX or VR (P-33), moreover, it is practically not amenable to neutralization. Subsequent speeches about the "ultimatum" and "hard answer", I believe, could argue with the best works of residents of the Comedy Club, including low-key. But analysts name different reasons for such inadequate behavior of the British leadership.
For example, the thesis that the British cover up internal problems with the scandal with the "immortal highlander" Skrypalem is very popular. Here are the consequences of Brexit, and the grandiose criminal pedophile scandal, and the internal political "struggle of the Nanai boys" among British politicians. It is possible, and even likely, that all these reasons played a role to some extent. Someone thought that all this hysteria was started with the aim of defaulting Russia almost with the aim of justifying a possible strike against Syria - not without that, but this was hardly the main goal. Considering the tough statements that have already been voiced from the very top of the military-political leadership of the Russian Federation, which do not allow double interpretation in general, it is clear that in response the RF Armed Forces can be very painful to knock - and then story with the traitor hovering between life and death, it will become quite petty and insignificant.
Traditional British Russophobia, expressed by Lord Palmerston as the phrase “how bad it is to live when no one is fighting with Russia,” also has a place to be. And a lot of "complexes of a small country", once the former powerful and strong, you can still call them phantom pain. They were an "empire, over which the sun never sets," and it was quite recently - until the 40-50-s. Hhv. And after that, they quickly became just a great power, even if it was led by the United States, but possessed quite decent military, military-technical and military-political capabilities and competencies. And in a very short period of time, about 15 years, Britain has lost them, becoming a typical European dwarf, even if it is the closest fish-sticky American shark. The only difference between the British Armed Forces, for example, from the German one, is the presence of a small amount of nuclear weaponsand it’s not all clear with him. But here is an understanding of where the hearth that this cricket should know, apparently, is not. And phantom pains of the disappeared power periodically push for the desire to play a “more important role” in the world, one of the consequences of which is the current exacerbation of paranoia in London.
After Brexit, Teresa May and Boris Johnson came up with the idea of Global Britain. They say that it is a free and independent from the EU, Britain should play a leading role in Europe, leading European herds of lost sheep to a virtual battle with "Putin's Russia." And even better in the world to regain the leading position - dream Teresa and Boris. Political manilovshchina pure, almost like the Kiev junta with their eternal "mriyami" on any issue. The fact is that such "Wishlist" must be supported by appropriate strength. And with her problems.
Underdone relics
Let us examine in more detail the issue of British nuclear power (or, rather, relics, and not imperishable, but underdone). In the past, the British had both tactical and strategic nuclear and thermonuclear bombs, and cruise missiles with a Blue Steele (very primitive, but quite consistent with the level of 60's technology) of their design, and the bombers — that is, there was no “triad”, but The arsenal was quite versatile and the carriers had their own. Moreover, I must say that the family of medium nuclear bombers, called "V-bombers" - Vickers Valiant, Handley-Page Victor and Avro Vulcan, were original and very remarkable cars for their time, especially the latter.
But the submarine-based ballistic missiles never gave birth to their own, and they failed to create their MRBDs, so they relied on submarine missile carriers. Who developed with the help of American specialists and based on the Lafayette-type SSBN project, first arming their first SSBN of the “Resolution” SLBM “Polaris A-3” without MS, which the British put on their own, and then later upgraded to HSRHIN modified “Polaris” A-3ТК "with low power 6 combat units (BB). By the way, the British themselves denied that the boat was developed with the help of the United States, except, say, the missile compartment, which was American, but common features, however, are visible.
But gradually, the British rolled up all of their nuclear components, eventually leaving only SSBNs, which are Vanguard-type ships with the D5 American Trident-2 substitute for the SLBM. The 4 SSRB type "Vanguard" focuses the entire nuclear potential of the country, more precisely, its remnants. Now the operational readiness of the British 120 BB design with the maximum power up to 80-100act (together with the exchange and repair fund of charges a little more, about the 160 - but nothing more). The D5 SLBMs themselves do not belong to the Britons, the Americans rent 56 missiles (more precisely, already a little less than 50, after all, there were also combat training launches). The serial numbers of the missiles are not spelled out in the contract, it’s just a question of quantity, if Americans are required for technical reasons, they change the rocket for another - in general, this is a “car-sharing” rocket. Moreover, the missiles remain the property of the United States, and according to the START-3 Treaty, the Americans inform us about the charges of others' charges, which fundamentally contradicts the British practice of hiding information of the already insignificant nuclear secrets of the kingdom and strongly enrages London, but nothing can be done about it. On the whole, it is a strange situation, when a nuclear power does not have its own carriers either, and it’s hard to say who actually owns the country's nuclear missile potential.
But even the 56 SLBM would not even be enough to complete all the 4 missile carriers (each 16 silo PU). But this is not what the Britons need - they have only 1 SSBNs on duty at the same time, 1 is still in dock repair, that is, it does not need missiles, 1 is preparing for a hike, and 1 is carrying out post-breakdown service and repairs. The SSBN on duty in the sea carries an incomplete set of missiles for some time - instead of 16 submarines only 8, and only 5's warheads on a rocket, that is, 40 BB - this is all that all the Royal Cavalry has, as a means of retaliation. In general, it is comparable with the potentials of third-tier nuclear powers, such as India, Pakistan, and the DPRK. Theoretically, one of the SSBNs that are on pre-preparatory training could have been involved in the first strike, but there is no counter or counter-strike for the British - there is no anti-missile attack, and even if the signal comes from the Americans, it is likely that it will be too late.
RGCHIN developed by the British can carry 6 BB (theoretically and up to 8), that is, the maximum ammunition of this type of SSBN 96-128 BB. Moreover, part of the BB is in the minimum power configuration (blocks of variable power up to 150ct at the maximum), to compensate for the complete absence of TNW as a class, and to tie up the conflict. Nuclear doctrine involves the application of warning shocks of low power, including demonstration. Only here the idea of placing a reduced power BB on an SLBM to compensate for a lack of TNW is idiotic. The problem is that the enemy, as soon as it detects a launch of an SLBM, will not wait until it arrives (where it arrives - it will know approximately already in the first minutes, and with accuracy to hundreds of meters - a little later) and observe what kind of power it will explosion. He will simply give the command to deliver a massive nuclear missile strike on Britain itself - and the BB will fly in response, certainly not of low power. After all, it is known that the SSBN on patrol is one and the BBs on the rockets are of different and different capacities, so why risk it?
Patrol SSBN type "Vanguard" in the Bay of Biscay, where in 2009. one of them (in fact, it was the ancestor of the type) ran into the French Triomfan SSBN and almost fell under the cancellation - both countries use Biscayka as a “bastion” of their strategic nuclear forces. Also, not so long ago, ideas were put forward to carry out military service by the British and French SSBNs in turn, protecting them together - of course, from lack of money, but this did not end with anything - 2014 arrived on time, tank reflect the army of the Russian Federation, which are preparing to enslave Europe, where can I save on matches? True, they continue to save, but on the other.
All royal cavalry, all royal army
With conventional military power, the situation is no better. The number of the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom (so far) is 153 thousand people. The British had never been particularly strong and numerous ground troops, though we recall von Bismarck, who joked that the British army that landed on the coast would order his police to simply arrest. But now the British land power has almost reached the bottom. The number of British NE 81 thous. in regular composition (of course, we are talking about the regular number, the actual smaller). There are two divisions - in fact, not connections, but administrative structures. The NW - 11 combat brigades, as well as brigades of support - on 1 artillery, engineering, reconnaissance and surveillance, medical, military police, logistics, on 2 - supply, communications. There is also a helicopter command, an air defense command, and various other units, in particular, three "regiments" (battalions) of infantry, stationed in the remnants of the British overseas possessions and marines. And, of course, the forces of special operations, in particular, the 22 regiment of the SAS (the other two regiments were transferred to the brigade of intelligence and observation).
SV are divided into "Reaction Force", designed for immediate use, including abroad - 3 tank brigades, tanks, BMP and other tracked vehicles, combined with the brigade MTO 3-th division, and 1 airmobile It is clear that “immediate” is very different from our or American notions of rapid deployment and levels of readiness, but it fits well into the unhurried norms of the alliance, where a consolidated light brigade is assembled for 5 days and larger forces in a few weeks.
Tank brigades should rather be translated as mechanized (as they used to be called), because translating Armored Infantry as "armored infantry" sounds to us, Russians, like a jumble. They consist of 2 tank "regiments" (in the reality of battalions) and 2 motorized infantry "regiments". There are also “flexible forces” (Adaptable Force) united in the 1 Division, intended mainly for the defense of Britain itself — the 7 infantry brigades on various wheeled armored vehicles, in particular MRAP and other equipment, which is suitable for traveling along rear roads but not suitable for combat. They are partly equipped with reservists. Of the other features of the construction of the SV, it can be noted that all the artillery of the tank, the infantry brigades, is concentrated in a separate artillery brigade, also consisting of 9 "regiments" (divisions), and it is inconvenient to manage such a structure. And from the artillery brigade, artillery is attached to combat brigades, which will necessarily cause problems with interaction and control.
Moreover, the current structure is not final. So, soon, instead of 3, tank brigades in the 3 division will have 2 mechanized and 2 "drums", and the total number of battalions will not change, just the brigade will facilitate. "Shock" is on BRM and other Ajax family machines (nee - ASCOD-2 from BAE), healthy and poorly protected 39-42 machines, which are now actively promoted as a new achievement by the British industry. And they are just as actively criticized for the high price tag, and for the large mass, dimensions, and weak weaponry and protection.
Techniques in the British army, in general, are no more than those of other military dwarfs, in which the armies of Germany, France, and other European "grandees of bygone times" degenerated. Thus, tanks "Challenger-2" in combat units, there are 162, just about 200. Frankly, this tank, even against the background of the Leopard-2, which turned out to be of little use in battle, looks rather pale - heavy, slow-moving, with a lot of flaws in protection, with an archaic weapon. Plans for its modernization have not come into being for the first decade, but nothing large-scale is being undertaken - usually everything depends on lack of funds or unwillingness to make large-scale changes, such as replacing the archaic 120mm rifled L30 gun with a smooth-bore Rh120. Now announced another tender on this topic.
There are about 400 BMP "Warrior" (here they started recently modernization can be considered successful), in the ranks, though not all, part of the storage. As well as more than 3 thousand different light armored vehicles such as BTR and MRAPs, more than 250 SAU, MLRS and towed howitzers (more than half - 105-mm light howitzers), less than a hundred combat helicopters, including the American 50 percussion "Apache". The worst thing is not the technology itself, but rather its very low technical readiness typical of the current European NATO countries. And the level of technical serviceability can hardly please the generals of the British General Staff.
To be continued ...
- Ya. Vyatkin, especially for "Military Review"
- http://www.globallookpress.com/
Information