Military Review

Five nails in the tomb of American hegemony

37
In the American edition of the International Business Times, there was an article entitled “Five ultrafuturistic types weaponsthat will forever crush US dominance. ” In it, a military columnist for the publication, Jacob Nelly, based on a recent speech by Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov at the Academy of the General Staff, discusses which types of weapons can challenge American hegemony and why the United States is unlikely to find any opposition in a short time. these patterns.




Most of these types of weapons are already quite well known to residents of Russia and military specialists from all over the world. Of course, in the framework of what is permitted, the “secret” neck was not completely removed from them, and more or less only general characteristics are known to us. However, the reasoning of the American expert is quite interesting, and we will try not only to talk about them, but also to comment from our, Russian perspective.

The first number in the published list is the Sarmat ICBM, the capabilities of which became widely known after President Putin’s message to the Federal Assembly.

The American expert was very impressed by the possibilities of Sarmat. And this is not surprising: the range of the rocket allows it to reach the designated targets from virtually any direction. At least from west to east, at least through either of the two poles: “Sarmat” doesn’t care how to fly and how to attack the enemy. And the intended use of the Avangard maneuvering glider on the new ICBM suggests that at the final stage of the trajectory it will be impossible to knock down the Sarmatian warhead even with the most advanced existing missile defense system.

The Avant-garde speed at the final stage of the trajectory reaches 20 M (M = Mach number) when entering the dense atmosphere, and cannot be knocked down with any existing missile defense system simply physically - they are designed to meet the warhead at the design point, their speed reaches the maximum 6 of sound speeds (and even three times more!), the accuracy of the hit should be of the order of several tens of meters. Provided that the flying target rushes at a speed of 20 M, and yes even maneuvers, it is even theoretically impossible to calculate the meeting point of the warhead with the antimissile, as well as adjust the course of the already launched rocket. And it remains to rely only on the promising development of a laser weapon, which should not only get into Avangard, but also ensure sufficient power of the impulse. And the power should be simply enormous, because the glider's casing is designed for temperatures of several thousand degrees, otherwise it will simply burn when it enters the atmosphere.

That is, Americans ’concern is well founded:“ Sarmat ”at once devalues ​​all US achievements in the field of strategic and object missile defense. And if we add to this a high speed of acceleration of the rocket, when it is most vulnerable, and the payload component of 10 tons, you realize that the headache for the hegemon is strong, long and of high quality.

The second number in the list of the American browser is the fifth-generation fighter Su-57.

According to the author, for all its probable flaws, the Su-57 is superior to the F-35 in many ways. And despite the fact that he still does not guarantee Russia superiority in the air, but nothing will remain of American impunity in the sky if the United States Air Force happens to meet this Russian novelty in the air.

In fact, no one truly knows the real capabilities of the Su-57 and F-35. But one can say with certainty: the Su-57 is “more universal” than its American counterparts. The American fighter-interceptor F-22, in principle, is not adapted to perform shock functions. And the F-35 is so versatile that it can fight against enemy fighters only while remaining invisible. That is, he cannot turn on his own radar, because he instantly finds himself, and without them, he can easily fly into the place where the enemy fighter will work with him. Su-57, by contrast, is capable of airborne hunting, the destruction of enemy radars, and the attack of surface targets.

Separately, it should be noted that the situation with airplanes created using the “stealth” technology can change drastically in the coming years, when the so-called “photon” radars will replace modern radars. This type of radar will be significantly more powerful than the existing ones (the efficiency of converting electricity into an impulse is at least twice as high), it can also emit and receive information simultaneously in a huge frequency range, which allows it to construct a real “picture” of the target, distinguishing not only the type of target, but and the payload on its external suspension.

The appearance of such radars instantly devalues ​​the machines, the main advantage of which was the use of stealth technology. It can be assumed that with the advent of radiophotonic radars, the F-22 will simply be declassified, and the Americans will remove it from service because it will hardly be possible to upgrade this highly specialized machine into something more universal. And the F-35 will turn into a normal strike aircraft, rather mediocre in its capabilities, but demanded due to the possibility of a vertical or shortened take-off, which makes it more stable in the event that the enemy defeats the airfields of the enemy.

We also add that the revolution, which is expected with the advent of the radiophotonic radar, can largely explain the caution with which the Russian leadership is now referring to the plans for purchasing the Su-57 for our army. After all, if we do not succeed in providing increased secrecy, then it’s impossible to speak about the great superiority of Su-57 over Su-30 or Su-35С. This also probably explains the slowness with which the Russian defense industry developed and introduced radars with AFAR.

At number three on the American list is the T-14 tank.

We could probably agree with the American expert if the initial plans were to implement 2020 for such machines by 2300 year. But now we are talking about a hundred. And with all the desire, this is clearly not enough to “dominate” the United States and NATO.

So far, it is obvious that our army is betting on the modernization of the old, but still quite usable T-72. And perhaps this also makes some sense - for local conflicts, the capabilities of the T-72B3 are still enough with their heads, but large-scale tank battles in the traditional European theater, it seems, are not expected. (With all due respect to the old man T-72, he may no longer be up against a serious adversary.)

Fourth number: Prometheus C-500

Here, probably, comments are superfluous: having inherited the best solutions and merits of their predecessors, the C-300 and C-400, the Prometheus had the opportunity to fight ballistic targets, up to medium-range missiles. At the same time, the range of aerial targets was significantly increased - according to some data, almost to 500 kilometers.

C-500 surpasses American competitors in almost all parameters - both THAAD and Patriot missile defense. He works with confidence on both ballistic and aerodynamic targets. And his ability to fight American stealth fighters was best of all told by the American commentator himself:

The system is capable of hitting targets within a radius of 480 kilometers and successfully intercepts hypersonic missiles, as well as shoot down F-22 and F-35 fighters.


And under the fifth number is the Nudol antimissile system.

The system, capable of intercepting both ballistic missile warheads and maneuvering orbital objects, made a very serious impression on Americans. And we will not argue with that. We only add that the withdrawal of the United States from the ABM Treaty has untied Russia’s hands, and now it can use mobile ABM systems in any threatened direction.

In conclusion, I would like to note that in reality, not everything is so rosy with the new weapons systems. And above all, we see serious problems in establishing mass production and purchasing large quantities of new weapons for our army.

But there is no doubt about that: the development is being carried out quite actively, and it is very likely that other types of new Russian weapons will fight with American hegemony.

And American experts will have more to write about!
Author:
37 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 12 July 2018 06: 04
    +16
    Five nails in the tomb of American hegemony
    Yeah ... and one nail in the head, the author of another victorious comparison of the missing weapons with the current one.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 12 July 2018 07: 15
      +2
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      another victorious comparison of the missing weapons with the current one.

      Does Syria say anything to you?
      1. Tahtvjd2868
        Tahtvjd2868 12 July 2018 07: 49
        +8
        Excuse me, what did Syria tell you about? On the significant excess of non-combat losses of the latest technology over combat ?? And what does this tell you? And the fact that a very limited counterparty was collected to Syria from all over Russia - what does this mean?
        1. Boris55
          Boris55 12 July 2018 07: 59
          +1
          Quote: Tahtvjd2868
          On the significant excess of non-combat losses of the latest technology over combat ??

          And why is it that not all incoming new equipment is brought by servicemen into a non-operational state? Are you sure that only one uneducated pithecanthropus is serving in our troops? laughing
          1. Tahtvjd2868
            Tahtvjd2868 12 July 2018 08: 07
            +2
            Maybe not such a sophisticated technique as we are broadcast here ??? Or maybe so few crews have just begun to study it ..
            1. Boris55
              Boris55 12 July 2018 08: 20
              +1
              Quote: Tahtvjd2868
              Or maybe so few crews have just begun to study it ..

              Cadets at universities study the latest technology, which only exists. Your allegations of oakiness l / s do not correspond to reality. You do not squeeze to lay out reliable documents on non-combat losses of equipment, unless you serve in the Pentagon and do not have their intelligence data.
              1. Tahtvjd2868
                Tahtvjd2868 12 July 2018 08: 33
                +6
                About the “oak” and “five-canthropus” - this is forgive your attitude to the military personnel of the RF Armed Forces. Unlike you, I can’t afford such names, because respect them.
                The thing is that the equipment is raw, there is very little operational experience.
                1. Boris55
                  Boris55 12 July 2018 08: 36
                  +1
                  Quote: Tahtvjd2868
                  The point is that the equipment is raw,

                  Who told you such nonsense? Do you know how long it takes to finalize the T-14, Su-57, S-500, etc ...?
                  1. Vol4ara
                    Vol4ara 12 July 2018 10: 22
                    +2
                    Quote: Boris55
                    Quote: Tahtvjd2868
                    The point is that the equipment is raw,

                    Who told you such nonsense? Do you know how long it takes to finalize the T-14, Su-57, S-500, etc ...?

                    Yes, no matter how much refinement goes there, in fact the future is visible only at Prometheus, the rest are sawing, they will not finish sawing
                    1. SETTGF
                      SETTGF 12 July 2018 10: 36
                      +1
                      Vol4ara! There is always a future in everything ... If only "fools" did not participate in this!
                2. SETTGF
                  SETTGF 12 July 2018 10: 29
                  +1
                  Tahtvjd2868! Isn’t it raw yet? We can send the diapers! You do not want?
            2. SETTGF
              SETTGF 12 July 2018 10: 27
              +2
              Tahtvjd2868! Keep spitting on bile, or maybe sober up ...
        2. SETTGF
          SETTGF 12 July 2018 10: 23
          +2
          Tahtvjd2868! Liberal nonsense is not tired of writing?
          1. Tahtvjd2868
            Tahtvjd2868 12 July 2018 11: 18
            +1
            But essentially there is something to say other than verbal diarrhea?
            1. SETTGF
              SETTGF 30 July 2018 20: 59
              0
              Tahtvjd2868! This is your litter, moreover ...
        3. cariperpaint
          cariperpaint 12 July 2018 16: 18
          +1
          Are you sho?))) And drove through this conflict tens of thousands of people, of course, the clones of that handful that they collected? Himself not funny?)))
    2. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint 12 July 2018 16: 16
      0
      You probably don’t know how to read, and the fact that he just brought an Amer article here, religion does not allow you to understand?)))
  2. isker
    isker 12 July 2018 06: 05
    +4
    "maneuvering glider ..."
    and in Russian?
    1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
      GELEZNII_KAPUT 12 July 2018 08: 15
      +3
      In Russian, faith does not allow them! And not just them.
    2. Nizhlogger
      Nizhlogger 15 July 2018 12: 18
      0
      We have already absorbed this word. In English, it refers to any moving subject. And we only have a flying machine. It was used mainly in science fiction literature to designate vehicles descent onto different planets.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 12 July 2018 07: 52
    +2
    The International Business Times is in vain worried ... American electronic stuffing in the latest Russian weapons. Article on VO. Today.
    1. credo
      credo 12 July 2018 11: 40
      +1
      Quote: parusnik
      The International Business Times is in vain worried ... American electronic stuffing in the latest Russian weapons. Article on VO. Today.

      Anglo-Saxons never write articles just like that, especially about Russian weapons and its wonderful aspects. Most likely, it (the article) was timed to coincide with Trump's visit to Europe and the upcoming NATO meeting, in order to spread fear on European members. It seems like so far the result has not been achieved and NATO members did not agree by 4% to increase the contribution to the "piggy bank" of NATO. So the Anglo-Saxons will continue to scare the whole world with the “terrible” weapons of Russia. To be continued.
  4. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 12 July 2018 08: 41
    +5
    In a word, there was an opportunity, after the 2nd MV, to strike at the USSR and they missed it. And today it’s more expensive.
    And about the "raw equipment and" unlearned "crews (calculations), which Tahtvjd2868 set forth - I would not be in a hurry with such unfounded conclusions.
    1. Tahtvjd2868
      Tahtvjd2868 12 July 2018 08: 52
      +2
      Gearbox on mi-28 .. as an example ..
    2. Tahtvjd2868
      Tahtvjd2868 12 July 2018 08: 59
      +1
      I did not write about "unlearned" !!! I wrote about the insufficient operational experience - the insufficiently long operating time - which naturally does not allow us to identify all hidden defects.
      1. SETTGF
        SETTGF 12 July 2018 10: 31
        +1
        Tahtvjd2868! Justified - it means to blame ... and then happy!
        1. SETTGF
          SETTGF 12 July 2018 10: 39
          +1
          Tahtvjd2868! Write common truths and no more! All this has long been known!
  5. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 12 July 2018 10: 43
    +1
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    Five nails in the tomb of American hegemony
    Yeah ... and one nail in the head, the author of another victorious comparison of the missing weapons with the current one.


    By the way, comrade striped scribbler also need something to earn his bread!
  6. Faceless
    Faceless 12 July 2018 11: 22
    +1
    It’s nice that the Americans think of such thoughts about us.
    About raw equipment - any new sample is raw and needs to be improved. How raw are the T-14, Su-57, Vanguard, Sarmat, etc. - Only those design bureaus who develop them know. To understand how effective they can be only by studying the statistics of their use, which is again closed.
    The conclusions are as follows: if we were able to create a miracle weapon, then we should not consider fools those who are responsible for its production; they will be able to figure out what and in what quantities to produce, so as not to remain in since 2000 in a moment of outdated equipment, after the release of a new radar, or a new engine.
    Second, all the nagging about the futility of new samples because of the small quantity, "dampness" of what is - the cries of amateurs. Professionals with relevant statistics will not disclose it. The best confirmation of quality is the release of new technology. That we had few projects on the tanks and aircraft that we closed? - they simply don’t talk about them anymore, and there was a Golden Eagle from Sukhoi, a White Eagle from Uralvagonzavod and much more. What is released is better in terms of aggregate indicators.
    The refinement of new technology is normal. How much did we complete the “Mace"? - just recently completed the test.
  7. Larum
    Larum 12 July 2018 13: 58
    0
    Yes, it’s nothing for the parades, but with so much weather will not do.

    Only the enemy will inflame.

    It is not for nothing that the Yankees have long relied on subsonic cruise missiles + cover aircraft.
    A lot, simply, relatively cheaply, for the mess, it will do.
  8. akudr48
    akudr48 12 July 2018 14: 41
    +1
    in reality, not everything is so rosy with the new weapons systems.

    It’s time for the author not to admire other people's comparisons, but to clarify what he meant, that not everything is so rosy with us ....

    And suddenly everything will not be so rosy even more.
  9. Curious
    Curious 12 July 2018 18: 49
    +1
    Where does the site get these authors? Kuzovkov, Vyatkin, Dzherelievsky ... Or did they write to Zhvanetsky before and he drove them out? Moreover, this is in the "Analytics" section. The name of the section assumes the presence of serious material, you open, and then Kuzovkov, then Kamenev, then both together.
  10. _Ugene_
    _Ugene_ 12 July 2018 20: 05
    0
    They would bring for each item out of five how many pieces in the troops, and everything would be clear, and so - dreams, dreams
  11. Freeman
    Freeman 13 July 2018 00: 55
    0
    Quote: isker
    "maneuvering glider ..."
    and in Russian?

    Quote: GELEZNII_KAPUT
    In Russian, faith does not allow them! And not just them.

    I translate in Russian, "for believers." lol
    Maneuvering glider, the essence is -
    Directions changing, Smooth gliding,
    Flying across the sky, Bird of Iron,
    Highly crafted.

    The miracle is overseas, but we are not a wonder.
    For there are craftsmen in Russia.
  12. Old26
    Old26 13 July 2018 09: 27
    +1
    Quote: _Ugene_
    They would bring for each item out of five how many pieces in the troops, and everything would be clear, and so - dreams, dreams

    A review from a series of horror stories for the western reader. There is a discussion of what, by and large, if any, is exclusively in prototypes. Take the same "Sarmatian". Yes, a new rocket, yes, in principle, energy allows it to bring "light and heat to American homes" both from the north pole and the south. But what it will be in reality can be said only after a full cycle of tests, and not after two throw.

    The same goes for other samples. It is possible that the “Vanguard” will be “unbreakable” by conventional means. But to say that it’s impossible to bring him down at all means firstly to mislead his readers in advance, secondly to not know his own weapons systems

    The same goes for other samples. It is possible that the Prometheus system will truly "have no analogues in the world." But again, talking about this will be possible only after the completion of the test cycle.
    Recently, more and more journalism of all stripes, both ours and theirs have taken for fashion to compare what is already in the series in hundreds of copies with what is in a single and in most cases only passes tests
  13. Dull
    Dull 13 July 2018 10: 30
    0
    Any potential adversary fears the serious and effective weapons of his opponent. This is the first reason. And, second, banal as the truth: to knock out more money for the army. There are no nails, for in something they surpass us, in something we are them. In my opinion, we can talk about nails with total dominance in the military and financial spheres. The hatred was before the Russo-Japanese, and before the First World War, and before the Great Patriotic War. What losses did all this turn out for the country, recall?
  14. Hadji Murat
    Hadji Murat 16 July 2018 05: 19
    +1
    Of course, there are more nails, but almost the largest ones were chosen directly ... the main thing from us is to ensure their production and deployment ... there is no money for it ... we will raise the retirement age to 80 years, so that the FIU would certainly be surplus and we will give our pension contributions to the country's defense