New US rocket and security threats

25

Test launch of the Tomahawk 18 rocket on August 2019

In February this year, the United States and Russia sequentially suspended their participation in the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty). Over the next few months, the parties were unable to find a common language and return to compliance with the agreement. 2 August Treaty formally terminated. As a result of this, the two countries can now develop and put into service new types of missiles previously prohibited by the INF Treaty. The new US medium-range missile may be tested in the very near future.

Menacing plans


In February, official Washington suspended its participation in the INF Treaty and launched a procedure for withdrawing from the agreement. This was followed by a series of important and threatening statements of various kinds. The US leadership continued to accuse Russia of violations, and the Pentagon announced its plans for the coming months.



In March, the military department announced its intention to conduct tests of two ground-based missile systems this year. It was a question of cruise and ballistic missiles of unnamed types. Testing of the products was scheduled for the second half of the year - they were supposed to take place after the final US exit from the INF Treaty. Both events were planned to be held no later than November.

Half of these plans were completed in August. Just a few days after the termination of the INF Treaty, a cruise missile was launched in the United States. A medium-range ballistic missile (BMBM) of a new type has not yet been tested.

In early September, it became known about some change in plans. Earlier, a test launch of the new ADB was planned for November. Now the possible dates have been expanded, and the tests will take place before the end of the calendar year. Half of November has already passed, and this means that only six weeks are left for the launch of the BRDS. Unless, of course, the Pentagon is not going to change the schedule again.

Prototypes


Already on August 18, the Pentagon conducted the first of two promised test launches of the “new” rocket, which did not comply with the provisions of a pre-existing treaty. An experimental ground-based missile system with a cruise missile made the impression of a hastily done and exclusively from available components. His trials generally showed nothing new.

The missile system was carried out on the basis of a wheeled semi-trailer with a platform. A vertical launch module for the Tomahawk rocket was installed on it. The result was a ground-based cruise missile system with a range of over 500 km. Testing and production of such complexes were prohibited by the INF Treaty.


Launch of the BGM-109G missile from a ground installation, November 1, November 1982

During the first and so far only launch from a land platform, the Tomahawk rocket hit the intended target. The ability to install such weapons to the ground platform has been confirmed by practice. Rather, it was a question of returning to old practices, since in the past there was already a modification of Tomahawk with placement on a land launcher.

According to the plans of the Pentagon, in the second tests this year they use a ballistic missile. The type of this product is still unknown. At the same time, the possible characteristics of the new MDB, as well as the possible areas of its deployment are reported.

It is planned to launch a medium-range ballistic missile capable of delivering loads over distances of 3-4 thousand km for testing. Weapons should be placed on a ground platform, the type of which is not specified. It will take several years to finalize the product, after which it will be able to enter service. The search for possible deployment areas is being carried out taking into account the characteristic threats and challenges of our time.

Dangerous news


Obviously, new types of weapons, the development of which was previously banned, are created not only to demonstrate the capabilities of industry. New US missile systems can be deployed in certain regions in order to solve specific military and political problems. It is the problem of deploying promising weapons that most concerns third countries, primarily Russia and China.

The ground-based version of the Tomahawk rocket, tested in August, completed the task and showed its capabilities. However, the characteristic appearance of such a complex suggests that he was exclusively a technology demonstrator. With its help, they confirmed the possibility of transferring the existing cruise missile to the ground platform, and this experience can be used in future projects.

Apparently, the semi-trailer with the installation under Tomahawk will remain a prototype, not intended for adoption. Accordingly, such a complex does not pose a threat to third countries. However, a problem of this kind will be new full-fledged systems developed on the basis of the experience gained.

To a greater danger for the geopolitical competitors of the United States can be a promising BRDS, the tests of which will begin in the near future. In the foreseeable future, it is planned to bring it to the series and adoption. Then serial products are deployed at various bases.


Complexes Pershing II - the latest at the moment, the BRDS, which were in service with the United States

Over the past few months, Pentagon officials have repeatedly raised the topic of the possible deployment of new infantry fighting vehicles in the absence of restrictions on the INF Treaty. It is assumed that such weapons will reach combat duty no earlier than five years later. One of the places of its deployment will be about. Guam, from where the BRDS will be able to control a significant part of China. In this case, an American missile will be a direct response to Chinese systems capable of attacking US targets in Guam.

The deployment of missiles in the territory of the allied countries in Asia or Europe will give the Pentagon certain advantages, but so far it seems unlikely. To do this, it is necessary to solve a number of issues of a political nature, as well as to convince the Allies of the security of such cooperation. If this can be done, the new BRSD will be able to threaten not only China, but also Russia.

Hidden threat


This year, the United States plans to test two missile systems previously banned by the INF Treaty. Both of the proposed models have their pros and cons, but only one of them at the moment looks like a serious threat. This is a medium-range ballistic missile, while preparing for testing.

SLBMs have a number of characteristic advantages over other shock systems. They differ in short flight time and are capable of carrying a different combat load, as well as means of overcoming missile defense. Such a weapon is convenient for carrying out the first strike on the enemy, which is quite difficult to repel.

However, the promising American BRDS is still hidden from the general public. Only the fact of its development and approximate characteristics are known. All this allows us to make forecasts, but their accuracy may still be insufficient. The situation should change in the coming weeks. Until the end of December, the Pentagon is going to conduct the first tests of such a missile, and they obviously will not be classified. Based on the new data, it will be possible to clarify the available estimates and forecasts, as well as expand them with an eye to the future.

Among other things, it will be possible to determine exactly how dangerous the new samples are, as well as how to deal with them. A promising infantry-fighting ballistic missile system will be able to enter service by the mid-twenties, and third countries still have time for the necessary reaction.

What to do?


Russia and China have not yet announced their plans in the context of a response to a new threat from the United States. However, it is clear what measures are required for this. It is necessary to develop anti-ballistic and anti-aircraft defense, which will make cruise and ballistic missiles of existing and promising types ineffective or useless. In addition, you may need a symmetric response in the form of your own missile systems of one kind or another.

Even at the stage of the exchange of accusations, it became clear that breaking the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles would have the most serious consequences. Now such forecasts are confirmed. The United States has already begun work on the creation of new weapons, previously excluded by the Treaty. In the foreseeable future, such systems are capable of changing the situation in the international arena, and it is not known where this will lead. However, it is clear that any of the new models may become the most serious threat to the security of several countries, including and Russia.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

25 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    15 November 2019 06: 18
    and also to convince the Allies of the safety of such cooperation
    But this can be a problem. But they are not complete idiots, to take over the response from Amer missiles. Although ... States have repeatedly shown that they are masters of carrying chestnuts with the wrong hands. so the probability is not zero.
    1. +7
      15 November 2019 08: 13
      Why so? The same Poland and Ukraine, I think, will even legislatively push through bills allowing these launchers to be based on their territory.
    2. +2
      15 November 2019 08: 18
      In Taiwan will stand, remember my words
  2. 0
    15 November 2019 07: 28
    The deployment of missiles in the territory of the allied countries in Asia or Europe will give the Pentagon certain advantages, but so far it seems unlikely.

    Between impossible and unlikely, a big difference. This will not please us at all, it should strain the geyropeytsev .... we’ll see.
  3. +1
    15 November 2019 11: 36
    The governments of Europe will fall under the United States with their Wishlist ... especially the countries of Eastern Europe, Poles ... Bulgarians ... probably Czechs ... some of the former Yugoslavs will definitely lead (and even more so for money) ... so a wave of deployment new "a la Pershing" is already close ...
    It's time to remember about Cuba ... or the stabilization of Venezuela with subsequent basing ... there is something to work on ...
    It was intended for deployment along the borders of Russia and was conceived ...
    1. 0
      15 November 2019 12: 17
      what for??? Do they have few missiles aimed at Russia?
      1. 0
        15 November 2019 12: 40
        Pershing (Europe and Turkey) at one time were a threat due to the short flying time ... and of course there are enough different missiles
      2. +1
        16 November 2019 15: 54
        Quote: Nastia Makarova
        what for???

        The United States has objective prerequisites for placing the BRMD against Russia and China: the presence of allies, in fact, dependent limitrophs, in the immediate vicinity of Russia and China. This will lead to the need to create a missile defense system, and later regional and continental. In any case, this completely fights off the sudden offensive actions of both Russia and China, and allows you to dictate your will.
        Quote: Nastia Makarova
        Do they have few missiles aimed at Russia?

        Especially with the adoption of a new generation of BRSMDs with instant combat readiness, with a flat trajectory and more productive energy. This is truly a “gun to the temples” of competitors, in contrast to the modern concept, which can be compared to a farm double-barreled at home just in case.
        For China, this is the deployment of the BRMD in Taiwan, South Korea, possibly Japan, the Ryukyu and Okinawa islands, the Philippines, of course, Palau, the Mariana Islands, and Guam. In the future, in Vietnam and India.
        For Russia, this is the deployment of the BRMD in Eastern Europe, primarily Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic states.
        P / S It seems that you can forget about START-3, the treaty on space weapons and other nishtyachki that limited crazy maniacs am
  4. +2
    15 November 2019 11: 41
    The Americans have three options for making a BDS:
    1) Revive Pershing 2
    2) Convert SM-3 into a ballistic missile.
    3) Convert the missile target for missile defense tests into a ballistic missile.
    The first option is the most effective, but also the most expensive.
    The second option is the cheapest, but low warhead.
    The third option is cheap, but ineffective in terms of performance characteristics.
    1. +1
      15 November 2019 13: 05
      Do you understand what a target for testing missile defense in Americans is? After all, they did it according to all the rules of the INF Treaty. It’s just a rocket stage, dropped from a plane’s transport using a parachute.
      1. 0
        15 November 2019 20: 33
        It is easy to add a booster (1st stage) to it to launch from the ground.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. +1
    15 November 2019 14: 21
    Quote: maden.usmanow
    In Taiwan will stand, remember my words

    The probability is small. Too close to the territory of China and such launchers can be covered by a significantly superior number of Chinese missiles ...

    Quote: silberwolf88
    Pershing (Europe and Turkey) at one time were a threat due to the short flying time ... and of course there are enough different missiles

    There have never been any Pershing in Turkey. Only in Germany. In Italy and Britain - "Tomahawks"

    Quote: voyaka uh
    The Americans have three options for making a BDS:
    1) Revive Pershing 2
    2) Convert SM-3 into a ballistic missile.
    3) Convert the missile target for missile defense tests into a ballistic missile.
    The first option is the most effective, but also the most expensive.
    The second option is the cheapest, but low warhead.
    The third option is cheap, but ineffective in terms of performance characteristics.

    You are absolutely right, Alexey! The first is the most efficient and expensive. But you can get any given performance characteristics
    The second and third options are ineffective due to the small payload

    Quote: arkadiyssk
    Do you understand what a target for testing missile defense in Americans is? After all, they did it according to all the rules of the INF Treaty. It’s just a rocket stage, dropped from a plane’s transport using a parachute.

    This is just one of the options for a target missile. Others start from the ground ...
    1. +1
      16 November 2019 16: 02
      Quote: Old26
      Too close to the territory of China and such launchers can be covered by a significantly superior number of Chinese missiles ...

      They can be covered only in the event of a first strike by the PRC, but the BRYMD in Taiwan is the weapon of the first disarming strike from the United States.
      Quote: Old26
      The first is the most efficient and expensive. But you can get any given performance characteristics
      The second and third options are ineffective due to the small payload

      Of course there will be a new rocket. New energy, instantaneous b / g, flat trajectory, anti-missile defense. All this requires new missiles, but perhaps a couple ... Most likely there will be a doublet: both the KR and the BR.
  7. +1
    15 November 2019 16: 52
    hi ... An experienced ground-based missile system with a cruise missile made the impression of a hastily done and exclusively from available components.
    ... Complexes Pershing II - the latest at the moment, the BRDS, which were in service with the United States
    On August 8, the Pentagon conducted the first of two promised test launches of the “new” rocket.
  8. +1
    15 November 2019 17: 44
    Well, these missiles should be more feared by the Chinese,
    1. +1
      16 November 2019 16: 07
      Quote: evgen1221
      Well, these missiles should be more feared by the Chinese,

      request Why, in fact? Our prospects are deplorable. crying
      The BRYMD in Poland, the Baltic States, as I understand it, the matter is almost settled.
      With Romania and Bulgaria it is not clear yet, but it can be seen in the plans.
      Ukraine is in doubt, but at least it is already considered as a placement option.
      1. 0
        17 November 2019 14: 13
        And who in their right mind trample on a nuclear power? Frg all his life under the gun lives like a union, so what?
        1. +1
          17 November 2019 19: 33
          Quote: evgen1221
          who in their right mind trample on a nuclear power?

          This topic has been discussed many times. Both here and elsewhere. I don’t feel like repeating myself at the banality.
          The conclusion is simple: trample.
          As the poet said:
          For every question
          Get the answer:
          We have a machine gun
          And you don’t have it ...
  9. +3
    16 November 2019 16: 59
    Quote: Mityai65
    They can be covered only in the event of a first strike by the PRC, but the BRYMD in Taiwan is the weapon of the first disarming strike from the United States.

    How many Americans can deploy missiles in Taiwan. An order of magnitude less than the Chinese can concentrate. So it’s unlikely that this blow can be considered disarming

    Quote: Mityai65
    Of course there will be a new rocket. New energy, instantaneous b / g, flat trajectory, anti-missile defense. All this requires new missiles, but perhaps a couple ... Most likely there will be a doublet: both the KR and the BR.

    Of course, no one will copy a rocket forty years ago. Yes, new energy, yes. perhaps anti-missile defense countermeasures (it all depends on the weight being thrown). A flat trajectory? Is not a fact. In this case, almost 2/3 of the range is lost, although the enemy’s reaction time is also reduced. They will catch it much later than the classic BR. Instant BG? It is not clear what you mean by this term. Doublet (BR and KR) - perhaps, but not a fact. Rather, there will be a specialized launcher for BR and a specialized launcher for KR
    1. +1
      17 November 2019 19: 26
      Quote: Old26
      How many Americans can deploy missiles in Taiwan.

      Specifically, Taiwan is much smaller than the PRC. Up to 1000 - 1500 RSMD, each with 3 - 4 small-sized BG, 500 - 3000 in range. And the same in the territorial waters of Taiwan.
      It is rather silly for the PRC to target nuclear weapons in Taiwan, as Taiwan is China.
      As well as candidates for the placement of South Korea, possibly Japan, the islands of Ryukyu and Okinawa, the Philippines, of course Palau, the Mariana Islands, Guam. In the future, to Vietnam and India.
      And now a new factor has been put into operation, please remember, the deployment of the INF at the territorial shelf.
      In order to squeeze the PRC, the Union territories will find, and they are able to buy up the native elites. wink
      Quote: Old26
      Instant BG? It is not clear what you mean by this term.

      Instant / constant alert. Pershing-2, EMNIP had b / g 40 minutes. As far as I understand, now the conversation will be about b / g in the area of ​​5 minutes from the team to the state of b / g No. 1, which will be determined by entering the flight program into the brain, checking the state of the gyroscopes, and supplying cryogenic components on board.
      Well, launch on command.
  10. mvg
    -3
    16 November 2019 23: 52
    Lord, well, we read our article, after copy-paste. How tired of reading Ryabov’s nonsense.
    Moderators, and you, by allowing the publisher, read this yourself? This is not jaundice. And UTB time after time !!!
    1. +1
      17 November 2019 19: 27
      So nothing is better.
      Either this or nothing.
      1. mvg
        -4
        17 November 2019 21: 56
        You just don’t have to skip raw articles into print. Even raw and liquid ones.
  11. +2
    18 November 2019 14: 01
    Quote: Mityai65
    Specifically, Taiwan is much smaller than the PRC. Up to 1000 - 1500 RSMD, each with 3 - 4 small-sized BG, 500 - 3000 in range. And the same in the territorial waters of Taiwan.
    It is rather silly for the PRC to target nuclear weapons in Taiwan, as Taiwan is China.
    As well as candidates for the placement of South Korea, possibly Japan, the islands of Ryukyu and Okinawa, the Philippines, of course Palau, the Mariana Islands, Guam. In the future, to Vietnam and India.
    And now a new factor has been put into operation, please remember, the deployment of the INF at the territorial shelf.
    In order to squeeze the PRC, the Union territories will find, and they are able to buy up the native elites.

    Dmitry! My friendly advice to you is to trim the sturgeon. And once in 10-20. There will be no 1000-1500 RMNDs in Taiwan and the same number in Taiwan's guides. From the word never. In the 80s, when the United States did not have any problems with their weapons and nuclear complex, they were able to deploy about 800-900 missiles in Europe in total. Now, in connection with the problems of creating new BGs, it is generally impossible to predict how much they will be able to deploy missiles into which they will use old YBGs.

    China does not need to attack Taiwan with missiles from the YaBZ. They have a lot of missiles with conventional warheads. For example, one fifth of missiles with nuclear weapons, the remaining four fifths with conventional ones. This, of course, is about missiles that fall under the definition of intermediate and shorter range missiles

    There may be many candidates, the question is somewhat different. Who will be the target. I do not think that Vietnam and India will go to host American missiles. From the rest - Guam and the Mariana Islands, I would cross out. For to cover the same China to the full necessary depth, it will no longer be necessary the INF missiles, but intercontinental missiles. In fact, it is guaranteed that three countries of the possible INF-based basing against China and Russia can be assumed. These are South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

    As for the deployment of missiles on the shelf, it has been banned for 40 years already under the OSV-2 treaty. There was a ban on the placement of missiles at the bottom of reservoirs in a stationary or mobile version, as well as a ban on the deployment of missiles on boats in their waters (including internal), which are not submarines if their range exceeds 600

    Quote: Mityai65
    Instant / constant alert. Pershing-2, EMNIP had b / g 40 minutes. As far as I understand, now the conversation will be about b / g in the area of ​​5 minutes from the team to the state of b / g No. 1, which will be determined by entering the flight program into the brain, checking the state of the gyroscopes, and supplying cryogenic components on board.
    Well, launch on command.

    In fact, such a term as instant combat readiness does not exist. There are various levels of alert. And instant combat readiness cannot be constant alert.
    Continuous alert is the lowest level of alert. The highest combat readiness is complete.

    What was the combat readiness of the Pershing-2, as well as of our analogous systems, depended on the general state of combat readiness. In particular, if the BG was constant, then medium and shorter-range liquid-propellant missiles could be at the technical position in an unfilled state. And for a very long time (months, if not years). The standards for bringing to the next state were developed. If the state of readiness was "Full", then all the fuel components were already filled, the time of readiness for launch was already calculated in a minute or two. But in this state, the rocket could be stored for an extremely short time. For example a week. In the future, the degree of readiness decreased .... Well, etc. So the readiness of Pershing-2 in 40 minutes is most likely a transition from a state of constant to full

    Moreover, you are talking about feeding cryogenic components on board. And this means only one thing - a liquid rocket. Neither we nor the Americans have this, moreover, they will not be used on INF missiles. Only solid fuel. And with existing liquid (intercontinental missiles), no refueling is carried out, because everything is filled, ampulized and low-boiling (cryogenic) components of rocket fuel are not used. This is the level of the early 60s for us with the Americans. well, or maybe some missile powers like North Korea, Iran can there are such refueling options. Although the probability of this is close to zero
    The United States has its own combat readiness scale, but this is not the subject of discussion in this case.
    1. +1
      19 November 2019 03: 15
      Quote: Old26
      If you are talking more about supplying cryogenic components on board. And this means only one thing - a liquid rocket. Neither we nor the Americans have this, moreover, they will not be used on INF missiles. Only solid fuel.

      Vladimir, of course. Only RSMD with TTRD. The cryogenic component may be needed not as fuel, but for cooling the GOS matrix. I believe that the new RSMD will have GOS, with radar, infrared or optical, as an option. To achieve a quo of up to 10 m.
      Quote: Old26
      Well, etc. So the readiness of Pershing-2 in 40 minutes is most likely a transition from a state of constant to full

      I agree with the wording. and the new INF, it should be no more than 5 minutes.
      In total, the new generation of INF will be much more perfect and dangerous.
      Quote: Old26
      Now, in connection with the problems of creating new BGs, it is generally impossible to predict how much they will be able to deploy missiles into which they will use old YBGs.

      It would be good. But then their logic at refusal from the DRMSD is completely not clear. Knowing that we can build capacity faster.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"