Let's try to figure out what impact the Dagger can have on the development of the Navy of the world. And first, let us recall what the president said to us:
“The unique flight performance of a high-speed aircraft carrier makes it possible to deliver a missile to a point of discharge in a matter of minutes. At the same time, a rocket flying at a hypersonic speed that is ten times faster than the speed of sound also maneuvers in all sectors of the flight trajectory, which also allows it to safely overcome all existing and, I think, promising air defense and missile defense systems, delivering to the target a range of more than two thousand kilometers of nuclear and conventional warheads. "
Honestly, very little is said, and the presented cartoon ... well, let's say, at the time of Joseph Vissarionovich, they would have put 25 in the camps for such years and would have been right. For such hack people who are engaged in this "cartoon", it would be worth forever excommunicating from the keyboard and sending to Central Africa to teach computer science to cannibal tribes (if they still remained there). The “animation” itself is such that it would be embarrassing for many fourth-year students, but the most important thing is that the “product” represented in the frames with great probability does not have anything in common with the present “Dagger”.
No, most likely what we saw “under the tum” in the MiG-31 - this is a real “Dagger”, but the footage of hitting the target ... The point here is not even that on the storyboard it’s absolutely clear that the ammunition is flying in one target (something like a dugout), and another (like a two-story house) explodes.
Yet to believe that the warhead of our hypersonic missile is equipped with equally hypersonic guest workers who can jump out of it and build a house in a split second, which will then explode the warhead, somehow difficult. But the problem is different - while the president talks about the speed of the 10 sweeps, the oblong body falling onto the blindage does so at subsonic speeds. Peer at the storyboard, estimate the missile displacement on individual frames and recall that in the second there is an 24 frame. On each frame, the ammunition flies barely its own length. Comparing the "Dagger" with the dimensions of the MiG-31, we understand that the rocket length is about 7 meters, which gives us a speed of 168 m / s or about 605 km / h. Not that hypersonic, it doesn't smell like supersonic.
From here follows a very simple conclusion - either the “Dagger” has an 10-flywheel speed only on the march segment, and in the vicinity of the target it loses it sharply, or what we were shown is not a “Dagger”.
The second part of the statement should pay special attention. The fact is that a lot of experts (and people who consider themselves as such) analyzed the Dagger on the basis of the video presented. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the probability that the contents of the “cartoon” (in the part where the flight profile is shown and the attack of the target) may not be relevant to the “Dagger” in general.
From the height of our current ideas about hypersonic speeds, two serious problems of a hypersonic missile are obvious. The first is maneuverability. No, as long as it flies in the upper atmosphere, there are probably no particular problems with maneuverability (in thin air), but a rocket, sooner or later, must descend into dense layers of the atmosphere — and there will be any significant maneuvers. accompanied by extreme loads, which, among other things, will cause a sharp loss of speed. Therefore, as far as the author is aware, our high-speed missiles (they are also called aeroballistic, the term is incorrect but familiar), like X-15, do not perform maneuvers, and, having gained "near-sonic" speed, go to the target in a straight line. Their protection is the minimum time remaining for the air defense systems to detect and destroy missiles.
The second problem is the “plasma cocoon” where the body going into the atmosphere at hypersonic speed will fall, and which impedes the operation of the missile’s homing systems. That is, we can fly at a hypersound, but we don’t need to land on a stationary (especially a moving) target, and this greatly limits the capabilities of a hypersonic weapon.
Let us now recall the frames of the flight trajectory to the target from the “cartoon”. First, the rocket soars into the high distant, then dives into the area where the target is located, after which it mysteriously forks (we see two trajectories), performs clever maneuvers, from which the friends of the sworn friends obviously have to get dizzy and attack the target.
From all of the above, I would like to conclude: “The Dagger” is an advanced version of our airball ballistic missiles, and probably works like this. It soars into the air, accelerates to 10M, flies to the target, then begins to descend into the dense layers of the atmosphere. The rocket body is discarded as unnecessary and a pair of warheads fly further, which begin to maneuver vigorously in space (most likely with no engine, only due to the speed gained earlier, that is, like the intercontinental ballistic missile warheads). The objectives of the maneuvers are two - to confuse the enemy's air defenses and slow down in order to get out of the effect of the plasma cocoon, so that the homing head turns on. And then the GOS captures the target, the CU adjusts the flight for its defeat - and that’s all, “finita la comedy”.
Does such a scheme of work "Dagger" contradict the words of V.V. Putin's? Not at all - re-read the text of his speech. There it is not said anywhere that the rocket flies on the 10M on the whole route, and there is not a single word about the speed of its combat units.
It seems to be logical, but the sad thing is that if (I repeat, IF) “Dagger” works like it was described above, then it does not at all constitute “vundervaffe”, which cannot be any air defense system. In order for the “GOS” to “turn on”, it is necessary to reset the speed of the strides to five, and this must be done a few dozen kilometers from the moving target in order to be able to adjust the flight. Maneuvering to reach the target - again, the loss of speed and the warhead will fly to the target is not at all on the 10 M, but well if on the 2-3. This warhead will still be a difficult goal, but to destroy it is quite possible.
So what can we say that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin once again embellished the real state of affairs? But not a fact. The fact is that the picture of the Dagger, outlined above, we built on the well-known and publicly available information, which appeared as if not decades ago.
How can you not remember the sweetest history, published in one of the issues of "Technology - Youth". In the old days, the bishop of the Catholic Church arrived to inspect one of the secular schools. After checking, he lingered for lunch, which he was served by the principal. The bishop told him that he was generally satisfied with what he had seen, but, in his opinion, since “science has not yet discovered a single more or less significant law of nature”, more attention should be paid to studying the Law of God. The director replied that yes, science is only taking the first steps so far, but it has a great future, and someday, for example, people will learn to fly in the clouds, like birds.
- Yes, for such words you direct road to hell! - exclaimed the bishop ... Wright, the father of William and Orville Wright, who designed and built the first plane in the world (although their primacy is disputed) and made a flight on it.
Let's not be like Bishop Wright and recognize that science does not stand still: the impossible yesterday, today it becomes possible. According to some data, it was not so long ago in Germany that the issue of the impermeability of the plasma cocoon was resolved, at least for a short time, and who knows what domestic Kulibins could have thought of?
As a hypothesis, let us assume that a self-guided missile with a range of 2 000 km, a march speed of 10М throughout the flight up to the target itself and the ability to vigorously maneuver during the attack was designed in the Russian Federation. To date, such an ammunition is really unable to intercept any anti-aircraft missile system of the world. Does this mean that the surface ships of the world are decidedly outdated and have no more combat value? What changes the appearance of the "Dagger" in modern concepts of building naval fleets?
Surprisingly - nothing.
A bit of history. In 1975, the long-range supersonic anti-ship missile P-500 "Basalt" was adopted by the Soviet Navy. For its time, it, without any doubt, had no analogues in the world and was an ultimatum powerful weapon that could not stop the existing at that time air defense of American ships.
The main medium-range anti-aircraft missile in those years in the American navy was the "Standard" SM-1 of various modifications, but it was not possible to use it any more effectively against the P-500. The fact is that the missile had a rather limited range (up to 74 km in some modifications), but it required constant illumination of the target by a radar beam. At the same time, the Soviet missile, finding its enemy AGSN, went down, hiding beyond the horizon until the deadline, thereby disrupting the guidance of the SM-1 fired at it. Using a P-500 medium-range missile after the Basalt appeared over the horizon was also extremely difficult due to the short flying time of the Soviet missile. The Sea Sparrow SAM, adopted in 1976, was a very imperfect weapon (the illumination radar operator had to visually see the target) and could not deal with low-flying supersonic missiles for some reason.
Especially to counter Soviet missile-carrier aircraft, the F-14 Tomcat heavy carrier-based interceptors were equipped with Phoenix long-range air-to-air missiles. In theory, the Phoenixes could shoot down Soviet supersonic missiles on a high-altitude section of the trajectory. In practice, the Phoenixes turned out to be such a complex and expensive weapon that they were not trusted by the deck pilots aviation USA (and this, in fact, the elite of the elites). That is, ordinary pilots and armament operators of the “Tom Cat” did not see this missile in their eyes - they did not give it out during the exercises. Naturally, after this it is impossible to talk about any effectiveness in their use in real combat.
Thus, it seems that the last days have come for the US surface fleet. Well, well, carrier strike groups with DRLO planes could count on the identification and destruction of Soviet surface ships at a distance greater than the launch range of the P-500. What about submarines? Yes, a squadron of anti-submarine aircraft and 12-14 helicopters was based on US aircraft carriers, but they could not guarantee control of the underwater situation at 500-kilometer distance from the aircraft carrier. At the same time, the Soviet SSGN, having received a target designation from the Legend (MKRTS) (which still sometimes worked exactly as the creators had intended), could, having received a target designation from a satellite, give a volley, and ...
But the Americans did not panic and were in no hurry to abandon their aircraft carriers. In 1980, the American version of the domestic 30-mm "metal cutter" was adopted - the six-barreled "super bullet" "Vulcan-Falanx". To tell the truth, its effectiveness against P-500 is somewhat doubtful. Perhaps the Phalanx could have aimed at the Soviet rocket, but at such a distance, when its 20 mm shells defeated with projectiles, little had already been done, because the anti-ship missile would go "to the finish line." The combat unit of Basalt was armored and that there the American "metal cutter" did not shoot off the P-500, this very warhead almost guaranteed flew to the side of the enemy ship.
But 1983 r in the US Navy entered the cruiser "Ticonderoga" with the latest radar "AN / SPY-1", a modification of the missile defense radar. And new “Standard” SM-2 SAM, which no longer required constant tracking of the target with a radar - it was enough to highlight it on the final segment of the trajectory.
In the future, the rocket was constantly improved, reaching a range of over 160 km - in other words, American ships were able to shoot down Soviet supersonic missiles before they, after finding an American warrant, would go to an ultra-low altitude. Gradually, the Americans learned to fight with Russian rockets and at the low-altitude section — their Spy, being a UHF radar, saw the sky perfectly, but it was very bad — what was at sea level. This problem was gradually solved, and in 2004 the new ESSM rocket, specially focused on fighting low-flying supersonic targets, took over the arms of the US Navy. Against Soviet satellites, the Americans developed ASM-135 ASAT, but the program was closed at 1988 g - the United States pushed the USSR away from the US-A satellites of active radar intelligence most dangerous for the American Navy.
Not immediately, but gradually, step by step, the Americans found ways to counter the Soviet “vundervaffe”. All these American means, of course, did not at all make supersonic missiles useless. “Granites” and “Basalt” remain very dangerous weapons even today. But ... the fact is that the means of attack and defense reside in the eternal competition of "shield and sword". At the time of the appearance of the "Basalts", the American "shield" could be said to have cracked, however, over time, the US strengthened it to such an extent that it allowed it to effectively resist the Soviet sword. The new US shield did not give guarantees of invulnerability (no shield would give such a guarantee to the warrior carrying it), but the combination of the “shield” (SAM) and the “sword” - deck aircraft gave the US fleet the ability to perform the tasks for which it was created, effectively enough to deal with carriers of Soviet long-range missiles and with the missiles themselves.
So, if the “Dagger” really possesses those characteristics with which we “awarded it”, then there is no doubt that the American “shield” has cracked again.
But just as well, there is no doubt that the Americans, realizing that they are in danger, will find in one year, or in ten ways, how to counteract Russian hypersonic missiles and gradually nullify the current technological superiority of the Dagger. No doubt, over time, they will “pull up” their “shield” to the level of our “sword.”
It is necessary to clearly understand that the concept: “We will give you the answer to any question:“ We have a machine gun, but you don’t have it! ”” Works exclusively against countries that are seriously inferior to our country in terms of scientific and technological development. In this case, yes, we can create “such devices” that the lagging country simply cannot counterpose to anything. And when you learn, we will be far ahead.
But no matter how much fun we have for the jokes of Mikhail Nikolaevich Zadornov who left us untimely, the Russian Federation does not surpass the United States in either the scientific or technical levels of development. If we take the purely military sphere, then, without any doubt, we are overtaking the United States in some areas, in other areas they are the best. And this means that the time is not far off when a quite worthy American answer will be found on the Russian “Dagger”, and we need to be ready for this.
By the way, it is possible that this “answer” is already now. To do this, we make another small excursion into history.
Falkland conflict, 1982 year. As we know, Argentina possessed Exochet anti-ship missiles, which could be used (and applied) by British ships. So, strange as it may sound, the “Exosets” in their tactical niche in 1982 absolutely corresponded to the Russian “Dagger” in 2018. Please do not throw at the author of the article with flowers in pots, but simply compare some facts.
Argentinean planes could use "Exocates" without entering the zone of the British air defense. More precisely, they entered, but the tactics of low-altitude flight did not leave the British time to react, as a result, they couldn’t even shoot at the Super Etandara, not to shoot down. The rocket flew to the target at an ultra-low altitude, at which the main British shipborne air defense systems "Sea Dart" and "Sea Cat" could not intercept the "Exochet" - there was no such technical possibility. Theoretically, the newest C-Wolf air defense systems could knock down the French anti-ship missile system, but, first, they were installed only on two British ships, and secondly, in practice, they didn’t always have time to work on subsonic Skyhawks rocket in combat conditions. Rapid fire artillery, like our AK-630 or American Vulcan Falanxes, could destroy the Exocates, but the British fleet did not have such artillery complexes. Aircraft wings on British aircraft carriers could not ensure either the interception of the “Super Etandar” or the destruction of the Execetes themselves.
In other words, at the disposal of Argentina was a super-weapon, which the British could not intercept with fire weapons (aircraft, missiles and artillery) and whose carriers they could not destroy before using their missiles. Strictly speaking, after the application they could not destroy either. Isn't it very similar to the description of the capabilities of the Dagger missile system? The author has no doubt that if the Argentine lovers of the navy had the opportunity to discuss the impending conflict with Great Britain “on the Internet,” as we do today, then the thesis “one Exeset missile” would have sounded everywhere.
Does the author have to remind who won the Falkland conflict?
The British ships could not destroy the missiles and their carriers, but they were able to mislead the homing head of "Exosets". As a result, the Argentine missiles hit only those goals that did not have time to set false targets, as happened in the case of Sheffield and Glamorgan. Strictly speaking, the Argentines did not shoot at Atlantic Conveyor - they used the Exocets on British combat ships, they set false targets, thwarted the capture and the missiles flew "into the milk." And there, to its own misfortune, the Atlantic Conveyor turned out to be, a converted civilian ship, which was not interfered with due to the inherent British economy of the means of staging.
Of course, today's gos British sample interference 1982 g is unlikely to be misleading. But progress does not stand still, and the Americans have always given a large role to the means of electronic warfare. And if, according to some sources, today we have been ahead in this area, this does not mean that the US EW stations are bad. At the same time, everyone who proclaims today: “One American aircraft carrier — one Dagger” and “We don't need a fleet, we have the Dagger” as if they forgot about the means of suppressing homing missiles. But whatever the speed of the rocket, the modern “gentleman's” set of GPS, which “works” on mobile targets - radar, optics and “thermal imaging” in the infrared range can be somehow misled. But it is very convenient not to remember this - for personal peace of mind, because you so much want to believe that the “gloomy Russian genius” created an invincible weapon that immediately changed the balance of power in the world!
In fact, if the “Dagger” possesses those performance characteristics that are attributed to it, it really represents an extremely formidable means of struggle at sea. It can be stated that the “shield” of the American Navy once again “cracked”, and this gives us the next 10-15 years much greater operational capabilities than the ones we had before. But everyone who speaks today about the uselessness of the military fleet of the Russian Federation, about the obsolescence of large surface warships as a means of fighting at sea, the author of this article asks you to think about one very simple idea.
Yes, without a doubt, we can curtail our shipbuilding programs today, give up on the development of means of countering American AUG - why, if we have the Dagger? But if the Russian Federation suddenly follows this path, then after 10-15-20 years in the United States, it will pounce, and we will find that our Daggers are no longer ultimatum and no longer represent an irresistible threat to American AUG. And we don’t have a fleet capable of protecting the coast of the Russian Federation, covering the deployment areas of strategic missile submarines, displaying the flag in the world's oceans, supporting countries where NATO "brings democracy". There is only a regiment of completely outdated MiG-31, which now even as interceptors can no longer be used, because the pendants are altered under "Daggers".