Military Review

USA: We need new missiles

33
The Pentagon needs the same powerful long-range artillery, which is available to the Russian military, or new short-range missiles, writes The National Interest, citing the US military.


USA: We need new missiles


The Pentagon believes that it needs missiles, because its field artillery is inferior to Russian cannons, whose range is longer than their American counterparts, the magazine writes.

The publication refers to the statement of the commander of US ground forces in the Pacific Ocean, General Robert Brown, made in March of this year, in which he stated that the US military "needed 499 missiles with kilometers and more."

The author recalls that such weapon violates the INF Treaty, signed by the USSR and the USA, in which countries "are forbidden to have ground-based ballistic missiles and cruise missiles with a range from 500 to 5500 kilometers". However, the Pentagon believes that Russia has long violated this agreement, therefore, they consider it possible not to support it.

Indeed, given that artillery has historically been perhaps the greatest strength of the Russian ground forces (Stalin called artillery "god of war"), it is not surprising that the United States wants to have its own powerful artillery, the article quotes Lenta.ru report.

Recall from the 2014 year, after the onset of the Ukrainian crisis, and then the Syrian operation, Moscow and Washington repeatedly accused each other of violating the existing rocket agreements, each time calling any reproaches of the opposite side to their address unfounded.
Photos used:
RIA Novosti / Vitaliy Ankov
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Borik
    Borik April 9 2018 14: 49
    +1
    And prove that the true range of Iskander missiles is 500 km. For all, yes. But in fact, she can continue to fly away.
    1. viktor.
      viktor. April 9 2018 14: 54
      0
      Iskander for their fear and scabbard wassat
    2. Every
      Every April 9 2018 15: 11
      +5
      Quote: Borik
      And prove that the true range of Iskander missiles is 500 km. For all, yes. But in fact, she can continue to fly away.

      And most likely flies on. (only quietly, spies around). Ours, however, found an elegant way out of the situation, showing that these were not land-based missiles, but aviation — this was about the Dagger system. Yes, the missiles are similar, yes, it flies further, but is based on an air carrier, which is not prohibited.
      As for the Americans, as usual they will invent a super-expensive system, with super-sophisticated ammunition and, naturally, with super-cost.
      1. misti1973
        misti1973 April 10 2018 04: 22
        0
        This dagger is most likely in a single copy, if at all. And we are talking about the 9M729 missile! Our people deny it. So, it exists.
        1. Every
          Every April 10 2018 11: 05
          0
          Quote: misti1973
          Our people deny it. So, it exists.

          Typical European logic - "Evidence is not important. The main thing is that I think so"
          "With a high degree of probability it can be argued that it exists" - greetings from may.
          "Dagger" is a complex, not a rocket. Which includes the carrier, rocket, detection, guidance systems, etc.
          How many of them actually are unknown.
          Information for consideration:
          the MIG-25 high-altitude interceptor was secret, they knew nothing about him until Belenko escaped. But if they did not know about him, this does not mean that he did not exist.
          Although from your point of view it is: if the weapon is not known, then it does not exist.
    3. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z April 9 2018 15: 51
      0
      The publication refers to the statement of the commander of US ground forces in the Pacific Ocean, General Robert Brown, made in March of this year, in which he stated that the US military "needed 499 missiles with kilometers and more."

      Looks tired of perverting them about Russia's violations of the INF Treaty, they began to quote "crying" generals! It means that they will “bury" this Treaty as a Treaty on ABM! There is no limit to the insidiousness of these "cowboys"!
  2. Kars
    Kars April 9 2018 14: 52
    +6
    Lobbyists of the military-industrial complex of the USA want more money for the owners))
  3. Operator
    Operator April 9 2018 14: 53
    0
    General Robert Brown: “rockets with a range of 499 kilometers and more are needed”

    Thanks for the support, Robert bully
  4. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 9 2018 14: 53
    +1
    In short, they need to make their Iskander. And start playing counter-battery games
    on 500 km.
    1. Mih1974
      Mih1974 April 9 2018 15: 00
      +3
      Why do these "eagles" "pedestrian" missiles? These dodges without air support are even farted towards the enemy, they’ll land a rocket to hell then, just don’t say that they “suspect” the option when their aircraft will be “moved” 500 from the front line negative belay . Mattress in such conditions - did not fight and will never be able to fight.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 9 2018 15: 34
        0
        For tactical action. BR response is faster than
        aviation response, although the impact power of aviation is much greater.
        Why did Iskander appear? - fast and accurate delivery of 500 kg of explosives
        on 500 km.
        But the symmetric answer is not complicated. The technology is relatively simple.
        Soon, many will have similar missiles. We already have.
        1. Every
          Every April 9 2018 18: 49
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh

          Soon, many will have similar missiles. We already have.

          Well, it’s clear to you, the neighboring countries do not feel warm relations with you. But why the Americans? After all, they have neighbors - Mexico and Canada. And where else to shoot at 500 km?
          The answer, in principle, is obvious - the deployment of such missile systems in Europe.
          But then the theater will finally become the territory of Europe. This is beneficial for the Americans - away from their borders. But what are Europeans thinking about? Do they really not understand that rockets and bombs will fall on them in the first place.
          Yes, and I forgot. The answer to Iskander may not give anything, since it will not be there at that place.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS April 9 2018 23: 53
            0
            Quote: Every
            And where else to shoot at 500 km?

            The secret of the Macedonian is that in the first place: There are two of them (not counting the export option), Iskander-M and Iskander-K, and they do not go separately. And secondly, the arsenal of the same Iskander-K allows him to beat the same Caliber for one and a half and even two and a half thousand kilometers. And these are completely different carriages. And if we recall that the Macedonian is able to beat the KR with the YaBCh, then the picture generally looms in oil. So, I think, 500 kilometers they are not so interested in as the analogue of our Iskander-K, which is much longer.
            1. Every
              Every April 10 2018 00: 14
              0
              I talked about the fact that they will have to be deployed in Europe. In the United States, they are not needed. There is no one to shoot at, even 2500 km.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS April 10 2018 00: 18
                0
                Quote: Every
                I talked about the fact that they will have to be deployed in Europe. In the United States, they are not needed. There is no one to shoot at, even 2500 km.

                In parallel with this statement, mattresses began the development of a new CD. At the same time, modernizing their axes.
                Of course, this is all for a European theater of war and possibly for a warhead. Again, and for sale to their vassals.
      2. misti1973
        misti1973 April 10 2018 04: 28
        0
        Come on! But where did our people show themselves better than them? You better remember the storm in the desert. The biggest mistake is to consider the enemy a weakling!
    2. Vadim Kurbatov
      Vadim Kurbatov April 9 2018 15: 00
      +3
      Iskander is not a panacea like aviation and the navy will be decided by field artillery, which must be fired off and dumped at a fast
      1. Setrac
        Setrac April 9 2018 21: 06
        +1
        Quote: Vadim Kurbatov
        Iskander is not a panacea

        Iskander is a highly specialized tool for the destruction of critical objects.
      2. misti1973
        misti1973 April 10 2018 04: 31
        0
        There will be many of them, there will be a panacea!
    3. vorobey
      vorobey April 9 2018 15: 28
      +5
      Quote: voyaka uh
      And start playing counter-battery games
      on 500 km.


      I’m afraid in counter-battery games with Russia they want to force someone else’s thread of the type Poles or Romanians .. the destiny of Russia and the States in counter-battery games is to be measured with buttons .. laughing laughing

      a rare missile will reach the middle of the Atlantic ... laughing laughing
  5. Altona
    Altona April 9 2018 15: 07
    +2
    Judging by how quickly the United States wants to organize a global war, they already have everything. It remains only to use all this wealth. And if something else is missing, then why are they striving for a new world war? It’s somehow illogical. Moreover, they were warned that they would be attacked with nuclear weapons, and not conventional, as they expect.
    1. misti1973
      misti1973 April 10 2018 04: 35
      0
      They just do not seek! If that were so, then the base in Latakia had long been destroyed. This is not at all difficult to do! They don’t need all this.
  6. Guillon
    Guillon April 9 2018 15: 22
    +2
    Indeed, we do not need any contracts, beat the striped !!! fellow angry soldier
    1. vorobey
      vorobey April 9 2018 15: 29
      +4
      Quote: Gillaton
      Indeed, we do not need any contracts, beat the striped !!! fellow angry soldier


      radically ... but it makes sense .. lol lol
      1. misti1973
        misti1973 April 10 2018 04: 40
        0
        It makes no sense! This is nonsense. Why fight? For "staples"? We will lose any conventional war to them. Of course, they will also get it. A nuclear war is a terrible thing! Especially if ballistic missiles begin to fall on cities.
  7. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 April 9 2018 15: 25
    +1
    In vain, "VO" places such materials, because they inspire unreasonable optimism in the American face.
    1. Chichikov
      Chichikov April 9 2018 15: 56
      +2
      And there, on the avatar vorobey all this optimism collapses quickly and simply, - "by a Russian scoop in an arrogant African face."
  8. Old26
    Old26 April 9 2018 16: 08
    +2
    Indeed, given that artillery has historically been perhaps the greatest strength of Russian ground forces (Stalin called artillery the “god of war”), it is not surprising that the United States wants to have its own powerful artillery,

    And who prevents them from having it? But they themselves refused in their artillery the caliber of 175 mm and 203 mm, having switched to a single 155 mm caliber, and now they are "crying"? But back in the 60s they had a 175 mm M-107 with a firing range of more than 30 km and a 203 mm M-110 with a firing range of 20 with a penny of kilometers? What prevented the development of this direction? Nothing. So now they begin to growl that the Russians have long-range artillery. Not yours - buy a self-propelled gun from the same Federal Republic of Germany, which ARSom beats EMNIP for 60 kilometers ....
    1. misti1973
      misti1973 April 10 2018 04: 42
      0
      Missiles are better. They aren’t just a missile, but a reactive one.
  9. Dormidont
    Dormidont April 9 2018 16: 36
    +2
    I need them to throw rockets
  10. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General April 9 2018 19: 09
    +1
    Translated from the diplomatic language: “Need more money” laughing
    And so the monstrous budget is bursting at the seams, also give anti-Russian missiles. I am losing weight with the Americans, more precisely with the Pentagon. How much money do not give them, all is not enough.
  11. prosto_rgb
    prosto_rgb April 10 2018 00: 14
    0
    The Pentagon needs the same powerful long-range artillery as the Russian military has at its disposal, or new short-range missiles
    “Rockets with a range of 499 kilometers and more are needed”

    Well this is for artillery and short-range missiles that fly 500 km
  12. Old26
    Old26 April 10 2018 08: 51
    0
    Quote: misti1973
    Missiles are better. They aren’t just a missile, but a reactive one.

    They have reactive and quite long-range. “Crying” is precisely about the lack of range of barrel artillery.