Sunset of the nuclear triad. US missile defense after 2030: intercept thousands of warheads


The development of any type of weapon often takes several iterations. And the more innovative it is weapon, the higher the chance that it will not be immediately implemented, put aside in the “long box” or shown as an example of an unsuccessful concept or project. Examples of creating breakthrough weapons that were ahead of their time, and we have already considered the attitude to them in the material “The Wunderwaffe Chimera Against the Phantom of Rationalism”. Nevertheless, technology is developing, cruise and ballistic missiles, which were useless for Nazi Germany, have become formidable weapons, laser weapons are becoming closer to the battlefield, railguns and other promising types of weapons will be realized without a doubt. And for their creation, a backlog is needed, obtained just during the development of useless "wunderwaffes."


One of the "wunderwaffes" is called the American missile defense program (ABM) "Strategic Defense Initiative" (SDI) Ronald Reagan, which, according to many, was only a way to earn money for the US military-industrial complex and ended in a “zilch,” since, based on the results of its implementation, real weapon systems were not adopted. However, in fact this is far from the case, and those developments that were studied in the framework of the SDI program were partially implemented as part of the creation of the program National Missile Defense (NMD)which is deployed and is currently operational.


SOI program in one picture

Based on the tasks and projects implemented within the framework of the SDI program, and extrapolating the development of equipment and technologies for the coming decades, it is possible to predict the development of the US missile defense for the period 2030-2050.

Economics of missile defense


In order for the missile defense system to be effective, the average cost of hitting a target, including a false one, must be equal to or lower than the cost of the target itself. In this case, one must take into account the financial capabilities of opponents. In other words, if the financial capabilities of the United States allow the withdrawal of 4000 interceptor missiles with a cost of $ 5 million apiece, and the financial capabilities of the Russian Federation allow the creation of 1500 nuclear warheads at $ 2 million per apiece, with the same percentage of costs from the defense budget or the country's budget, The US is winning.

In connection with the foregoing, the main objective of the United States in creating a global strategic missile defense system is to reduce the cost of hitting one warhead. To do this, implement the following:

- reduce the deployment cost of missile defense elements;
- reduce the cost of the missile defense elements themselves;
- increase the effectiveness of individual missile defense elements;
- increase the effectiveness of the interaction of missile defense elements.

Diamond Pebbles and Elon Musk


The main subsystem of the SDI program, which should have been entrusted with the task of intercepting warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles of the USSR, was supposed to be “diamond pebbles” - a constellation of satellite interceptors placed in orbit around the Earth and intercepting warheads in the middle part of the trajectory. It was planned to put into orbit about four thousand satellite interceptors. Not that it was completely impossible even at that time, but the cost of implementing such a program would be prohibitive even for the United States. And the effectiveness of “diamond pebbles” at that time could be called into question due to the imperfection of computers and sensors of the late XX century. Since then, major changes have taken place.

About the item “reduce the cost of deploying missile defense elements”. To begin with, the United States has already been able to launch cargo into orbit at a price comparable to or even less than that at which Russia can put a payload into orbit. We can say that the USA has never had such a cheap way to launch cargo into orbit. Given the difference in the budget of the United States and Russia, the situation does not look in favor of the Russian Federation.

Of course, it is necessary to thank for this beloved / unloved (underline as necessary) by many Ilona Mask. It was SpaceX’s rockets that were able to reformat the commercial market, which was previously dominated by Roscosmos.


The cost of withdrawing existing launch vehicles (LV)


The cost of launching promising launch vehicles (LV Falcon Heavy already refers to the "existing")

Withdrawing a tonne of cargo on the Falcon Heavy LV is two times cheaper than on the Russian Proton LV and almost three times cheaper than on the Angara-A5 LV - $ 1,4 million compared to $ 2,8 million and 3,9 , XNUMX million dollars respectively. SpaceX's reusable, ultra-heavy BFR rocket and Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin New Orgin rocket can deliver even more impressive performance. If Elon Musk succeeds in BFR, then the US armed forces will be able to launch cargoes into space in such quantities and at such a cost that no one has ever had before stories humanity. And the consequences of this are hard to overestimate..


Superheavy pH BFR and pH New Glenn

However, even without BFR and New Glenn launch vehicles, the United States, the available Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets are enough to bring huge payloads into orbit at a minimum cost.

At the same time, Russia refused the Proton rocket, the situation with the Angara rocket family is unclear - these missiles are expensive, and it is not a fact that they will become cheaper. The project of the promising Irtysh / Sunkar / Soyuz-5 / Phoenix / Soyuz-7 rocket can drag on for a decade, if at all, with a positive result, and the superheavy Yenisei rocket, contrary to Rogozin’s words, is far from the fact that it will be reusable, and at the cost of removing the payload, will most likely be equivalent to the superheavy and super-expensive American SLS rocket developed by NASA.


Superheavy missiles "Yenisei" and SLS

Competencies in the field of space technology in Russia are still preserved. For example, on February 7, 2020, 2.1 communications satellites of the British company OneWeb (satellites developed by Airbus) were launched from the Baikonur cosmodrome of the Russian Soyuz-34b launch vehicle with the Frigate booster block. The situation with Roscosmos can be compared with the situation with the Russian Navy. There is technology, there is experience, but at the same time there is complete confusion and reeling regarding the general direction of development, a misunderstanding of the goals and objectives facing the space industry.

Sunset of the nuclear triad. US missile defense after 2030: intercept thousands of warheads
OneWeb Satellites


Launch of 34 OneWeb Soyuz-2.1b satellites (video + animation)

SpaceX can provide the US military with technology to meet the challenges of “lowering the cost of the missile defense elements themselves.” This assumption is based on the Spacelink network of Starlink communications satellites deployed to provide global access to the Internet. According to various estimates, the Starlink network will include from 4 to 000 satellites with a mass of 12-000 kilograms and an orbit height of 200 to 250 kilometers. At the beginning of 300, 1200 satellites were launched into orbit, and by the end of the year another 2020 launches are planned. If 240 satellites will be displayed each time, then by the end of 23, the Starlink network will have 60 satellites - more than all countries in the world combined.


Cassette with Starlink satellites. Each satellite weighs 227 kg

What is striking here is not so much the ability of a private company to put such payload volumes into orbit as its ability to mass-produce high-tech satellites.

On March 18, 2019, NASA successfully deployed an array of 300 KritSat Sprites nanosatellites in 105 km altitude orbit. Each Sprites satellite costs less than $ 100, weighs 4 grams, and its size is 3,5 x 3,5 centimeters, that is, in fact, it is a printed circuit board equipped with a short-range telemetry transmitter and several sensors. Despite the seemingly “toy” of these satellites, they are extremely interesting for the reason that this miniature unprotected platform successfully operates in space.


KickSat Sprites Satellite Deployment


KickSat Sprites Satellite Deployment Animation

What does this have to do with missile defense? The experience gained by companies such as SpaceX or OneWeb (Airbus) in creating a huge number of high-tech satellites in the shortest possible time at the lowest price can be applied to the construction of a new generation of missile defense satellites. Why at the lowest price? Firstly, because these are commercial projects, and they must be competitive. Secondly, because low-orbit satellites in low orbit will gradually leave it and burn out in the atmosphere, respectively, they will need to be replaced. And given the number of satellites in Starlink and OneWeb, this will be a considerable amount.

As we have already said earlier, as part of the NMD, the United States is developing MKV interceptors that will be deployed in clusters and designed to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with multiple warheads. At the same time, it is supposed to significantly reduce their mass, almost to 15 kilograms per interceptor. It should be understood that MKV interceptors are developed by “traditional” representatives of the US “old school” defense industry, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company and Raytheon Company, whose products are traditionally not cheap. However, the market forces American companies to flexibly adapt and, if necessary, cooperate to carry out joint projects. SpaceX's invasion of the military launch market has already forced the "old guard", accustomed to huge government orders during the Cold War, to optimize their operations. It is quite possible that, for example, SpaceX joins the Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company or Raytheon Company in the development and production of promising interceptor systems for missile defense.


MKV Cluster Interceptor

What does this mean in practice? Yes, the task of putting into orbit a group of 4000 or more missile defense interceptors, announced back in SOI program, in the next decade may become a reality. Considering that the private company SpaceX plans to launch 4000-12000 communications satellites into orbit, the US budget will allow launching a comparable number of interceptors into orbit, with a cost of, for example, about $ 1-5 million per unit.

At the same time, the appearance of such a LV as BFR will allow not only cheaply launching interceptor satellites, but also ensuring their removal from orbit and return to service, modernization or disposal.

Why place interceptors in space? Why can not they be launched from terrestrial carriers, as is now done as part of the GBI program?

Firstly, because the advance deployment of interceptors by commercial carriers will be much cheaper. The cost of launching a comparable number of interceptors with military missiles will always be greater than the missiles of private SpaceX or Blue Origin companies. However, a certain number of interceptors will be placed on land and underwater carriers, to provide the possibility of operational replenishment / amplification of the satellite constellation and to solve the problems that we will consider below.


For operational replenishment / strengthening of the satellite constellation of missile defense, interceptors can be placed on missiles in mines and on nuclear submarines

Secondly, the response time of the satellite constellation is significantly higher than the land or sea components of the missile defense system. It can be assumed that in some cases, interceptor satellites will be able to attack the launching ICBM even before it carries out the breeding of warheads and false targets.

Thirdly, it is extremely difficult to destroy a huge group of orbital interceptors. Especially when in orbit, in addition to interceptor satellites, several thousand, or even tens of thousands, of commercial satellites will be placed. And yes, a bucket of nuts will not help destroy orbiting satellite constellations, just like foil or silver do not protect against laser weapons.


In the near future, something like this may look like an orbit near our planet

All this suggests that in the future the space echelon of the US missile defense system will be dominant.

But do Russia and China have interceptor satellites? And here the economic factor will already be decisive: who can cheaper to launch cheaper and more effective weapons into orbit, including taking into account the difference in the budgets of opponents, has an advantage. "God is always on the side of large battalions."

In terms of timeline, US Missile Defense Agency specialists want to minimize the time required to move from existing ground interceptors to next-generation weapons. Some observers believe that it will be ten years before the first next-generation interceptor is delivered, but others suggest that deliveries could begin around 2026.

Laser PRO


From time to time, information appears on the Internet, including from the lips of American politicians, that it is planned to deploy orbital platforms with combat lasers designed to destroy ballistic missiles at the initial stage of flight, as part of a promising missile defense system. At the moment, the US industry is quite capable of creating laser weapons with a capacity of about 300 kW, in 10-15 years this figure can reach 1 MW. The problem is that in space it is extremely difficult to provide heat removal from the laser. For a 1MW laser, even with an efficiency of 50% that is achievable at the current level of technology development, it will be necessary to remove 1 MW of heat. In this case, it will be necessary to ensure heat removal from the energy source for the laser, the efficiency of which will also obviously not be 100%.

Russia may have an advantage in this regard, since effective heat removal systems are being developed as part of the creation of a space tug with a nuclear power plant, while the US competencies in this direction are unknown.


Nuclear Power Tug Concept

What can be the tasks of orbital platforms with laser weapons, and what threat can they pose?
The defeat by laser of already divided warheads can be virtually eliminated, since they are equipped with powerful thermal protection that ensures their survival with a decrease in the atmosphere. Another thing is the defeat of ICBMs in the accelerating section, when the rocket is only gaining speed: a relatively thin body is vulnerable to thermal effects, and the engine torch unmasks the missile as much as possible, allowing laser weapons and interceptors to be aimed at it.


Laser weapons orbital platforms can hit ICBMs in the booster area

An orbital laser weapon poses an even greater threat to the “bus” - a system for breeding warheads, since the influence of the atmosphere is already ruled out at an altitude of 100-200 kilometers, and exposure to a high-power laser beam can disrupt the operation of sensors, orientation systems or engines of a breeding stage, which will lead to a deviation warheads from the target, and possibly to their destruction.


Warheads on the "bus"

An orbital laser weapon can also perform an equally important task after breeding warheads and releasing false targets. False targets, as you know, are divided into heavy and light. The number of heavy targets is limited by the load of ICBMs, but light targets can be much larger. If for every real warhead there will be 1-2 heavy false targets and 10-20 easy false targets, then even with the current level of restrictions, to destroy 1500 warheads with a “retinue” of false targets, more than 100 interceptor satellites will be required (if you accept the probability of interception by one satellite is about 000%). Withdrawing 50 or more interceptor satellites is most likely unrealistic even for the United States.


Inflatable transatmospheric false warhead of the American Minitman ICBM

And here, an orbital laser weapon can play an important role. Even short-term exposure to powerful laser radiation on inflatable false warheads will lead to a change in their radar, thermal and optical signatures, and possibly to a change in the flight path and / or complete destruction.

Thus, the main task of an orbital laser weapon is not primarily to directly solve missile defense problems, but to contribute to the solution of this problem by other subsystems, primarily by grouping satellite interceptors, ensuring the identification and / or destruction of false targets , as well as ensuring a decrease in the number of real targets, due to the defeat of part of the launching ICBMs and systems for breeding warheads in the initial phase of the flight.

Missile defense ground segment


The question arises: will the ground segment remain in the prospective US missile defense and why is it needed? Of course, yes. For several reasons.

Firstly, because the ground segment is the most developed and already deployed. Creating an orbital constellation of thousands of interceptor satellites is a complex and high-risk task. Secondly, the ground-based missile defense segment can defeat low-flying targets, for example, planning hypersonic warheads that are invulnerable to the space segment.

Now the main striking force of the ground level echelon of the US missile defense is GBI missiles in underground mines. After the dimensions of interceptors are reduced and the standard anti-aircraft ballistic missile system (SAM) “Standard” is capable of intercepting ICBMs, one can expect both an increase in the number of deployed anti-ballistic missiles on ships of the United States Navy and the ground launchers of these anti-ballistic missiles in the United States and their allies.


Launch of the RIM-161 missile defense missile system "Standard"

conclusions


It can be assumed that for the period until 2030 the ground echelon will be the main one in the US missile defense system. At this point, the total number of interceptors on missiles of various types can be about 1000 units.

After 2030, the deployment of the orbital constellation will begin, which will last about five years, as a result of which 4000-5000 interceptor satellites will appear in orbit. If the system is recognized to be operational, efficient and economically adequate, then its deployment will continue to 10000 or more interceptor satellites.

The appearance of an orbital laser weapon capable of solving missile defense problems can be expected no earlier than 2040, since it is not just a satellite interceptor weighing 15-150 kilograms, but a full-fledged orbital platform with sophisticated equipment, which could take several decades to develop.

Thus, in the period until 2030, one can expect the US missile defense to intercept about 300 warheads and false targets, by 2040 this figure can grow by an order of magnitude - up to 3000-4000 warheads and false targets, and after the appearance of orbital laser weapons, capable of "filtering out" light false targets, the US missile defense will presumably be able to intercept about 3000-4000 warheads and heavy false targets and about one hundred thousand light false targets.

How much these forecasts will become reality depends largely on the political course of the current and future US leadership. As we understood from recent statements by US President Donald trump, USA “Will not limit themselves to developing missile defense against countries that do not recognize international standards”. For China, the missile defense created will be redundant by 2035–2040. Only Russia remains.

There are no fundamental technical barriers to the creation of the above elements of the ABM system. Technically, the most difficult is the creation of an orbital laser weapon, but taking into account the current state of work in the USA on laser weapons, by 2040 the tasks set could well be solved. As for the deployment of thousands of interceptor satellites, indirectly the possibility of realizing this segment of missile defense can be judged by how the plans of commercial companies to create the latest reusable missiles and deploy global satellite networks will be realized.

At the beginning of the SDI program, Richard Deloyer, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, said that in the face of an unlimited increase in Soviet nuclear warheads, any missile defense system would be inoperative. The problem is that now our nuclear triad is pretty much “squeezed” by the START-3 strategic nuclear arms limitation treaty, which is due to end on February 5, 2021. What agreement will replace him, and whether it will come at all, is still unknown.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

133 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. K-50 11 February 2020 18: 12 New
    • 12
    • 3
    +9
    In order for the missile defense system to be effective, the average cost of hitting a target, including a false one, must be equal to or lower than the cost of the target itself.

    Do not channel on any.
    To defeat, you need at least two missile defense missiles, one warhead (if you did not succeed in intercepting before breeding the warheads).
    An attack rocket, as a rule, carries up to ten BB. Simple arithmetic how many missiles are needed. And how much will it be. lol
    1. Gregory2 11 February 2020 18: 29 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      To defeat, you need at least two missile defense missiles, one warhead (if you did not succeed in intercepting before breeding the warheads).

      To destroy one warhead with a probability of destruction of P = 0,9999, it is necessary to use at least 3 anti-missiles with a probability of destruction of the target of at least P = 0,95.
      1. Range 11 February 2020 20: 08 New
        • 22
        • 7
        +15
        An article for all penguin good versus all Russian bad. A lot of "bugs" from unscientific fiction. Oh well.
        1. lucul 11 February 2020 20: 30 New
          • 13
          • 4
          +9
          An article for all penguin good versus all Russian bad. Oh well.

          In general, I have doubts about the effectiveness of these MKV interceptors - in fact, you need to place a missile defense system with fuel reserves for maneuvers in orbit and all this stuff fit in 15 kg? )))
          Yes, they have one shot with Javelin is more expensive - than they here draw the price of an orbital interceptor.
          Secondly, ours doesn’t just work out hypersound - perhaps soon all nuclear weapons will be transferred to it. In this case, the entire planned orbital grouping of Amer interceptors will be useless ....
          1. Range 11 February 2020 20: 36 New
            • 13
            • 5
            +8
            They cannot shoot down an ordinary rocket, but here maneuvering blocks flying along an unpredictable trajectory. This is how much garbage should be kept in space? And then how to clean it? And if the rocket flies through the south pole? There is not enough raw material for the production of so many candy wrappers, even virtual ones.
            1. Alex777 11 February 2020 21: 25 New
              • 10
              • 3
              +7
              And how will they bring Poseidon out of orbit? hi
              1. Range 11 February 2020 21: 29 New
                • 10
                • 3
                +7
                And for this they have underground troops. They will knock them down from the bottom of the world.
              2. timokhin-aa 13 February 2020 15: 19 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Poseidon will sink.
                Unlike missile defense, amers have PLO, and it is quite real, effective and tested in practice.

                But the missile defense capable of repelling the blow of Russian missiles will never be with the United States.
                1. author-words 14 February 2020 01: 16 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Too deliberate categorization as for a person who considers himself worthy to broadcast to the masses. How is confidence in the capabilities of US missile defense and missile defense in the future at least 10-15 years?
                  1. timokhin-aa 14 February 2020 11: 52 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    Understanding the current level of technology development + some classified information about the capabilities of heavy ICBMs, which I will not disclose.
                    1. author-words 16 February 2020 20: 42 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      But what kind of secret information is there, Wikipedia already has everything, not to mention open monographs, I beg you) Anyone who is interested in knowing that PCB PRO is very effective at the moment, the covenant spot for the radar is 30 by 120 km, selection is difficult, and the AUP of new ICBMs is less than 2-4 minutes. And here, in the top, not heavy ICBMs, but a Mace with a turbojet engine. But the capabilities of SM-3 block 2 are not yet fully understood, so certain "alternatives" in the form of the Stalinist tsar-torpedo, etc., should not be discarded for now.
                      1. timokhin-aa 19 February 2020 11: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        This is absolutely not the case, but I will not explain. And the tsar’s tsar is elementarily destroyed on the opposite course even by an ordinary torpedo.

                        At depth - a nuclear depth bomb.

                        In the long term (2-3 years), the restoration of the CAT program. Roughly, for each of our dollars spent on the program, they will spend 0,1 cents. With a richer economy.

                        And finding her is not a problem now.
                    2. isker 26 March 2020 19: 56 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      you are so "off topic" that even commenting on your stupidity is laziness ... ((
                      1. timokhin-aa 26 March 2020 22: 46 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        You are not lazy, since you dug up this old topic and it hooked you like that.
                        You just want to yap, but essentially there is nothing to object, that's all.
          2. voyaka uh 11 February 2020 23: 11 New
            • 5
            • 7
            -2
            "I generally doubt the effectiveness, these MKV interceptors cause - in fact, you need to place a missile defense system with fuel reserves for maneuvers, in orbit and all this stuff fit in 15 kg?))" ////
            ----
            They were tested in space. Approximately 50% interception. That is, we need 3 "killers" for one warhead ICBM.
            1. sentaniel 13 February 2020 13: 57 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              50% probably all the same hits, and not interception? Hit is not always enough to destroy, but deviate from the course.
          3. Shopping Mall 12 February 2020 12: 58 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: lucul
            In general, I have doubts about the effectiveness of these MKV interceptors - in fact, you need to place a missile defense system with fuel reserves for maneuvers in orbit and all this stuff fit in 15 kg? )))


            I, too, have doubts about this, and therefore I looked at the possibilities for the output of satellites of 150-250 kg.

            I think that 15 kg is a guided warhead, and there will be one guidance module, for example, for 6-10 warheads.

            Quote: lucul
            Secondly, ours doesn’t just work out hypersound - perhaps soon all nuclear weapons will be transferred to it. In this case, the entire planned orbital grouping of Amer interceptors will be useless ....


            Hypersound is in the atmosphere. It has its drawbacks, do not consider it a panacea. First of all, it is monstrous visibility due to the warhead warming up and the impossibility of using light false targets.
            1. timokhin-aa 13 February 2020 15: 20 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The fact is that the battle unit in space has the same visibility, there is nothing to hide in orbit.
            2. voyaka uh 13 February 2020 15: 50 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              "that 15 kg is a guided warhead, and the guidance module will be one, for example, for 6-10 warheads." ////
              ----
              No, It is Immpossible. Each device has its own guidance system. But he doesn’t have a warhead, in the middle there is a blank. Kinetic strike towards the target.
        2. Cyrus 12 February 2020 09: 36 New
          • 9
          • 1
          +8
          I’ll throw your comment at the level of all with a hat without getting off the couch, in principle, fully corresponds to your profile picture.
    2. max702 11 February 2020 18: 32 New
      • 15
      • 6
      +9
      And if you take into account that the missile defense has not shot down a single missile (even during exercises), it’s somehow that in 10 years they’ll solve all problems directly .. I can’t believe it at all .. I drank another one and no more ..
      1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 11 February 2020 19: 15 New
        • 10
        • 8
        +2
        Quote: max702
        And when you consider that the missile defense has not shot down a single missile (even during exercises)
        This is a very bold statement.
        1. max702 11 February 2020 19: 25 New
          • 8
          • 9
          -1
          Production shots and other "successful" starts are not interesting .. I cut it up and drank it in America .. We don’t shoot down old Poplar, in principle, and there’s no talk of a more modern one ..
          1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 11 February 2020 19: 34 New
            • 13
            • 17
            -4
            Ah, got it. Good luck in your impenetrable fantasy world.
            1. Sanichsan 14 February 2020 17: 26 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Well, what do you want? what are the arguments and the reaction.
              You are demonstrating to us a certain set of incoherent fireworks, passing them off as missile defense successes, in connection with which the reasonable question arises, "what the hell is this?"
      2. Po-tzan 12 February 2020 11: 53 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        Quote: max702
        And given that the missile defense has not shot down a single missile


        Our S-300/400/500 also never shot down anyone, and why?
        1. victor50 12 February 2020 18: 17 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: PO-tzan
          Our S-300/400/500 also never shot down anyone, and why?

          But nothing! They are ours! laughing
        2. Sanichsan 14 February 2020 17: 28 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: PO-tzan
          Our S-300/400/500 also never shot down anyone, and why?

          "yours" will never knock laughing
          and the Russians are constantly knocking something while covering Khmeimin.
    3. zulusuluz 11 February 2020 18: 38 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      And how many of them will be needed for the planning hypersonic unit? And no one canceled the Poseidons ...
    4. Chaldon48 12 February 2020 08: 56 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Everything is decided by the ratio of efficiency to price.
    5. Evil Booth 13 February 2020 13: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      old ravings in a new way. but for those who went to the top it’s quite a good chance as an occasion for the last war. and in general, a good flightless boom can split the planet without taking off, and this is a bit complicated for missile defense.
    6. telobezumnoe 2 March 2020 11: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      and if you look at the price of a potentially hit object? Yes, and with their printing press? they will buy for their candy wrappers both resources and blacks for their production and development
  2. Sergey39 11 February 2020 18: 27 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    It has long been known that the third world war will begin in space.
  3. Svarog 11 February 2020 18: 31 New
    • 23
    • 18
    +5
    Interesting article. Thanks!
    I think that with today's approach, by the year 2040-50, Russia will finally lag behind .. For Rogozina, the master of the Twitter genre, will not allow us to develop.
  4. Vasily Ponomarev 11 February 2020 18: 31 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    it is worth clarifying that in the list of promising missiles it is worth adding the OMEGA missile from Northop Grumman and remove the falcon heavy PS: read it already
  5. Farewell 11 February 2020 18: 38 New
    • 14
    • 1
    +13
    In order for the missile defense system to be effective, the average cost of hitting a target, including a false one, must be equal to or lower than the cost of the target itself

    This postulate is fundamentally false. An ABM system will be effective if the cost of destroying a ballistic missile is less than the damage that it can cause.
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 11 February 2020 18: 56 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      Exactly. The cost of a missile defense must be compared with the cost of the target, which will be destroyed in the event of a missile defense.
      1. Evil Booth 13 February 2020 13: 49 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        so the nunl is still 99 trillion! wired from niber! =) the approach is absolutely false for nothing meaningless. this is how the tiger was made instead of t34
    2. agond 11 February 2020 19: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I would like to ask a question to those who know how the missile defense satellite or the THAAD missile defense detects a target, they write with an infrared homing head, I think there are several heads for different spectra, but still if the target is cold and low contrast against the background of space, and small in size, for example, a cube with a side of 50 cm , and it absorbs radio waves, and if it reflects it is not where it should be, at what distance can it be detected?
      1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 11 February 2020 20: 38 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        "Cold low contrast" by the standards of space is a temperature of relict radiation (3K / -270С). And it must be cooled down to such a temperature in a vacuum for a very long time.
      2. Shopping Mall 12 February 2020 12: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: agond
        I would like to ask a question to those who know how the missile defense satellite or the THAAD missile defense detects a target, they write with an infrared homing head, I think there are several heads for different spectra, but still if the target is cold and low contrast against the background of space, and small in size, for example, a cube with a side of 50 cm , and it absorbs radio waves, and if it reflects it is not where it should be, at what distance can it be detected?


        The THAAD missile detects the target with an infrared homing head, and its sensitivity is unknown. Preliminary target designation provides radar.

        In the SDI orbital interceptors, lidar was considered - relatively speaking a laser radar. Most likely in the future there will be combined GOS - IR, UV, TV, radar, lidar + exchange between sensors on different devices.

        I considered different types of vision for armored vehicles in the material Ergonomics of workplaces and combat algorithms for promising armored vehicles https://topwar.ru/159275-jergonomika-rabochih-mest-i-boevye-algoritmy-perspektivnyh-bronemashin.html
        In missile defense, of course, completely different technologies, but the principle is similar.
        1. Sanichsan 14 February 2020 17: 33 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: AVM
          The THAAD missile detects the target with an infrared homing head, and its sensitivity is unknown. Preliminary target designation provides radar.

          hmmm ... do North Korean ballistic missiles have no infrared radiation or are they invisible to radar?
          as far as I remember, the only thing that Japan, which seems to have THAAD, could offer its citizens was to hide in shelters during North Korean trials.
    3. Narak-zempo 12 February 2020 00: 33 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Adieu
      This postulate is fundamentally false. An ABM system will be effective if the cost of destroying a ballistic missile is less than the damage that it can cause.

      Not. It is necessary to compare it with the price of a rocket. Because in order for the target not to be destroyed, we must, without tearing ourselves economically, be able to repel ALL missiles that the enemy can, based on the capabilities of his economy, send them. And if on our 10 miraculous anti-missile missiles he can produce 100 ICBMs, then the situation is obviously losing. Actually, this is the reason for the failure of all Cold War missile defense systems.
      1. Sanichsan 14 February 2020 17: 38 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Narak-zempo
        No. It is necessary to compare it with the price of a rocket.

        why do you need anti-missiles? Are you playing ping pong with your enemy or are you trying to secure your territory?
        Why do you think Israel built its “iron dome” and uses it to bring down Palestinian rockets made from a water pipe?
        1. Narak-zempo 14 February 2020 17: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: SanichSan
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          No. It is necessary to compare it with the price of a rocket.

          why do you need anti-missiles? Are you playing ping pong with your enemy or are you trying to secure your territory?
          Why do you think Israel built its “iron dome” and uses it to bring down Palestinian rockets made from a water pipe?

          Actually, the Iron Dome and the global missile defense described in the article are conceptually different systems. Israel may not be soared about the relationship between the price of missile defense and homemade Palestinian crafts, because its economic potential is obviously many times higher.
          The global conflict between the superpowers (and for what else the ability to intercept thousands of warheads is necessary?) Is much more consistent with the “ping pong game” - you need to be able to repel enemy missiles not much more expensive than the enemy produces them. Otherwise, he will easily achieve excellence by massaging them.
          1. Sanichsan 14 February 2020 18: 07 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Narak-zempo
            Israel may not be soared about the relationship between the price of missile defense and homemade Palestinian crafts, because its economic potential is obviously many times higher.

            Seriously? Do you have such ideas about missile defense? belay you really don’t understand that getting such a pipe into any house is not only a reputational loss, but also millions of payments to victims.
            in Khmeimin Russia, too, from great wealth shoots rockets at drones made of guano and sticks? wassat or maybe all the same one Su-30 is much more expensive than 1 missile? wink
            Quote: Narak-zempo
            Otherwise, he will easily achieve excellence by massaging them.

            massaging what? which rockets need to fly across the floor of the globe?
            1. Narak-zempo 14 February 2020 18: 20 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: SanichSan
              you really don’t understand that getting such a pipe into any house is not only a reputational loss, but also millions of payments to victims

              Exactly. Reputational losses will ultimately bring losses even more than payments. But the country is rich, and the territory that needs to be covered is small. So you can’t save on missile defense.
              Quote: SanichSan
              massaging what? which rockets need to fly across the floor of the globe?

              So after all they will fly - it will not seem enough.
              There is no time to think about reputational losses and compensation. Here the task is to survive in an acceptable state after the impact, and at the same time not to fly into the pipe before it. And ideally, show the probable enemy that, if the race continues, he will fly into the pipe.
  6. Olya Tsako 11 February 2020 18: 53 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    A dozen satellites with ampouled perchloric and sulfuric acid, leveled out NTP and eliminated the advantage of any space hegemon.
    1. Old Michael 12 February 2020 00: 36 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Ten satellites with ampouled perchloric and sulfuric acid

      What? Cheap and cheerful. Satellite inspector with a canister of royal vodka and a spray bottle.
      Olya, brilliant! Urgently patent!
  7. rocket757 11 February 2020 18: 55 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Now there is nothing special to discuss, because everything rests on the quantitative indicators of the already known, i.e. direct dependence on the development of the economy of the opponents !!! .... then we need to talk about it, but this topic is for the future, with many unknowns so far. Everything is very roughly obtained .... on trust, how warm! But trust ... NO.
  8. bk316 11 February 2020 18: 56 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    Orbital laser weapon poses even greater threat for the “bus”

    You should at least read something on the topic. And it’s not even convenient. What you call a "bus", but in reality BUS, is not at all a synonym for RGC, it is just one of the MIRV types, the most primitive when the paths of all warheads lie on one straight line (hence the bus). So this type was used by old US missiles, but we have a different construct.
    1. Shopping Mall 11 February 2020 22: 37 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Quote: bk316
      Orbital laser weapon poses even greater threat for the “bus”

      You should at least read something on the topic. And it’s not even convenient. What you call a "bus", but in reality BUS, is not at all a synonym for RGC, it is just one of the MIRV types, the most primitive when the paths of all warheads lie on one straight line (hence the bus). So this type was used by old US missiles, but we have a different construct.


      "Bus" is the commonly used name for a reentry warhead system such as "jeep" or "photocopy".
      1. Vladimir_2U 12 February 2020 03: 30 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Another thing is the defeat of ICBMs in the upper stage.
        It seems to me not a problem at all, a few high-speed cheap missiles with dense, possibly metallized smoke from burnt fuel, not even to the mine / launcher but to the basing area and that’s all, the starting section of the trajectory is covered.
        An orbital laser weapon poses an even greater threat to the "bus" - a system for breeding warheads, since at the height of 100-200 kilometers the influence of the atmosphere is already ruled out
        With this it is more difficult, one must think, perhaps for a long time. )))
        1. Operator 12 February 2020 16: 39 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          There is such an exotic solution - in the head part of a single-stage rocket there is an RDTT annular nozzle (similar to the RPG-7 marching engine), as a result, the missile body is in the cocoon of exhaust gases that protect against laser irradiation during the AUTO.

          But if the thrust of a rocket engine allows you to complete the ATF even in dense layers of the atmosphere (before reaching an altitude of 40 km - like an A-235 missile), then a laser attack by a rocket is not terrible:
          - firstly, due to the natural formation of a plasma cocoon upon reaching a speed of 5M (maximum speed of an ICBM of 25M);
          - secondly, due to a drop in the power of a megawatt laser (ionizing air) in the process of beam self-focusing / defocusing in dense layers of the atmosphere until the rocket reaches a speed of 5M.

          A laser of lower power than a megawatt has a too low specific energy density due to beam divergence at a distance of +300 km (when firing from a low orbit).
  9. KCA
    KCA 11 February 2020 19: 08 New
    • 8
    • 4
    +4
    Even when developing the Tsar Bombs, or Kuzkin’s Mother, physicists suggested the possibility of creating a thermonuclear charge of unlimited power, a test of a charge of 57 MgT confirmed this theory, who knows (or, conversely, knows very well) how science developed in this direction 60 years old, what is clamped in the "Dead Hand"? What missile defense systems, SOIs, satellite lasers, if somewhere, anywhere, can there be a charge not at 57MgT, but at 570, 5700, 57000? He will not receive, for example, within a year a reset command, and there is no ball at all
    1. max702 11 February 2020 19: 35 New
      • 6
      • 5
      +1
      Then they will write to you in an instant that after the exchange of strategic nuclear forces strikes, green grass, blue sky and apple trees will bloom .. And the fact that during the test the king of the bomb went on for a few seconds (19), a self-sustaining thermonuclear reaction took place and it was this that scared ALL who saw and realized it, and not three times few people know the shock wave around the ball and the flash for hundreds of kilometers .. If the charge was 100mtn, as previously planned, there might not have been a planet called earth .. At the CP they said well, everyone played out .. So given 60 years, I think all these nonsense about PRO earning for those interested x persons .. The only thing that works a little in this area is interceptors with nuclear weapons, the rest is zilch and bluff .. And it’s very dangerous, giving false confidence in the successful use of nuclear weapons ..
    2. meandr51 11 February 2020 20: 16 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Any charge will be less than a shot of a large volcano. The planet will not notice anything that has not yet been seen.
      1. KCA
        KCA 12 February 2020 01: 15 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Something I don’t know of such a volcano, the blast wave from the eruption of which would circulate around the globe 3 times, in your opinion, the impact on the environment of the release of energy within seconds is equivalent to the release of the same energy for a month? I’m neither a physicist nor an explosive engineer, so I’ll guess without a doubt that a ton of RDX during the explosion will release the same energy that a light breeze will transmit to a building on 5 floors in two hours, and that the destructive effect of RDX and the breeze will be the same?
        1. Vladimir_2U 12 February 2020 03: 34 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          Quote: KCA
          Something I do not know such a volcano, the blast wave from the eruption of which would circulate around the globe 3 times
          Perhaps because in 1883 when Krakatau woke up, you were not yet in the world. )))
          The sounds of explosions were heard on the island of Rodriguez off the southeast coast of Africa at a distance of 4800 km from the volcano. Later, according to the testimony of barometers in different places of the world, it was found that the infrasound waves caused by the explosions circled the globe several times .... The force of a volcano explosion is estimated from 100 to 200 megatons
        2. meandr51 12 February 2020 11: 52 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          I would prefer a breeze near the building, but the planetary impact of nuclear war is similar to natural disasters occurring in a historically short time. In any case, such an. among specialists exists. Of course, humanity will be seriously affected. But similar phenomena occurred on Earth before.
          1. KCA
            KCA 12 February 2020 12: 59 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            It is theoretically possible that not only initiated lithium from the charge, but hydrogen will enter the thermonuclear reaction, but there were no such cataclysms on Earth, maybe the ball will not fall apart, it will just look like Mercury, although much further from the Sun
      2. max702 12 February 2020 14: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: meandr51
        Any charge will be less than a shot of a large volcano. The planet will not notice anything that has not yet been seen.

        The problem is that mankind does not build nuclear plants, hydroelectric power stations, chemical plants and many other dangerous objects on volcanoes .. But missiles with nuclear weapons will fall on such objects and will thereby produce a cartoon effect .. More than once wrote earlier WHO will eliminate (and how) the consequences of the destruction of nuclear reactors? But how, for example, do we eliminate the consequences of the destroyed dam of the Krasnoyarsk hydroelectric station? Why does everyone think that nuclear weapons will destroy something somewhere there? No, they will hit at the most dangerous points for the enemy .. And the consequences of radioactive contamination of the fuel emitted (hundreds of thousands of tons) of the destroyed nuclear power plants are incorrect to compare with the volcano, the territory for living will be always polluted .. Where will we live, grow crops, graze cattle, take clean water? How will we respond to the growth (by orders of magnitude) of cancer? How will all this affect the genome of future generations? How many freaks and people with disabilities will get as a result of this in a couple of three generations? Nuclear tests and the participation of troops in them are hiccuped by everyone until now and will remind of themselves yet it is not known how much.
        1. Roman070280 12 February 2020 15: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Where will we live, raise crops, graze cattle, take clean water?

          How many questions do you have right away ..)
          I think the need for this will disappear .. so do not rack your brains ..))
  10. Andrey.AN 11 February 2020 19: 12 New
    • 13
    • 2
    +11
    15 kg, it’s like a stinger rocket or something, a billion of them will not help them there, even if there will be ten times more of them in orbit than the people in China, and as for the orbit, the ICBM flies low along the steep path, high along the steep the average value at an acceleration angle of 45 degrees to the maximum range reaches a height of 2500 km. Interceptors, as I understand it, are even more stupid to place in geostationary orbit than if they would revolve around the Earth in different directions at altitudes from 400 to 4000 km. You don’t need to talk about lasers, they won’t push anything at Zamvolt, something capable of knocking a rocket from a distance of a couple of kilometers, dreams of a hyperboloid burning a target from a geostationary orbit in near space, leave it to children's storytellers. There are also thoughts to launch an express of such hyperboloids over the territory of the Russian Federation in the near space in order to burn at the start.
  11. 7,62h54 11 February 2020 19: 21 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Well, in 2030 we’ll take a look
  12. mark2 11 February 2020 19: 32 New
    • 10
    • 7
    +3
    Maybe, perhaps, it is quite achievable .... Here are the main points of this fantastic saga.
    Hopes for the Mask really touches.
    The USSR 16 years after the end of the Second World War launched a man into space. At the same time, there was neither technology nor developments nor the necessary metals and alloys. Everything had to be done and invented on the spot.
    And now everything is provided to the Mask: the experience of generations, all kinds of technologies and so on. And where? Where is the promised manned ship? Already 18 years have passed since the economist decided to take up spacecraft.
    Maskophiles and hilarious people say that he is trying. Well, everyone is trying. The mask will be a monument with the phrase "The man who tried."
    Especially in the article I liked the part about spacecraft measuring 3 * 3,5 cm from one board. So the hard radiation in orbit was canceled? There is no need to invent protection. This is really trash. The ISS is super-protected, and then it flies under the protection of the atmosphere. And here. Yes, these boards Sun will burn out instantly.
    As for the rest - this is similar to excerpts from the magazine "Young Technician" section "fantasy and beliefs of the peoples of North America."
    1. Mathafaka 11 February 2020 20: 44 New
      • 6
      • 6
      0
      What does a manned spacecraft have to do with a space missile defense?
      It's about reducing the cost of space launches. Mask did it.
      And there’s no need to lie, there were technologies and developments, too, Fow 2 called
      1. mark2 11 February 2020 22: 22 New
        • 4
        • 5
        -1
        The most direct.
        How could I explain it more simply. The reliability of vehicles for humans is a direct indicator of the reliability of all technologies in the space field. A person raised into the sky, faced with problems, will not be possible to save. Its survival depends on the reliability of those same technologies.
        They cannot lift a person into space, then it is not clear why they are sure that this will work at all, everything that is fantasized in the article.
        If Musk for 18 years, with all the modern technological advantages of the United States (they say 50 years ahead of us) cannot create a more or less reliable spacecraft, then the technologies are not the same, or everything is launched much stronger than they tell us.
        After all, he not only does not work as a dragragon. He broke off with hyperloop in India. If you are not stupid, then why should the Indians be suckers? Tesla was both expensive and not getting cheaper, either in purchase or in operation. And that global rzhach over his armored car, the glass of which broke from the throw with the hand of a steel ball? Have you seen the videos with the launch of the ship on which the mouse runs?
        Musk is also the animator and scout of horses.
        1. author-words 14 February 2020 01: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Did Musk smoke marijuana on the radio? I don’t remember that Korolev was addicted to drugs) Maybe this is the whole point?)
  13. Nick Russ 11 February 2020 20: 04 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    In order for the missile defense system to be effective, the average cost of hitting a target, including a false one, must be equal to or lower than the cost of the target itself. ,,

    A missile overcoming missile defense is always easier and cheaper to make than a system that can shoot down these missiles.
    Well, and besides, there is the concept of “unacceptable damage”. That is, if out of a thousand warheads, although it will reach the United States a little, then all their efforts, when creating a missile defense system,
    will be reduced practically to zero.
  14. dirk182 11 February 2020 20: 28 New
    • 3
    • 8
    -5
    I'm not interested in missile defense at all! It is much more interesting to sell the Central Bank of its shares of Sberbank to the Government. Well, we expect the privatization of Sberbank and the withdrawal of our money abroad? Apparently, they decided not to preserve Russia as an integral state.
    1. Range 11 February 2020 21: 48 New
      • 5
      • 7
      -2
      They are simply afraid that the Central Bank, as amended by the Constitution, is leaving the control of the adversaries. Gref also folds his flippers in Sber. They feel that the missile defense will not help them, so they have sharpened the skis. Yes, let them withdraw virtual money with their carcasses over the hill (the air will be cleaner in Russia), and the real money in gold remains in Russia.
  15. NordUral 11 February 2020 20: 39 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Like it or not, but the one who first takes possession of the orbits will dominate the world. The rest is all horror stories or lyrics.
  16. Knell wardenheart 11 February 2020 20: 48 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    If all these developments are based on the Doomsday War, then the decision with 4000+ interceptors or laser platforms, with all its ambitiousness, is not without certain drawbacks, perhaps even critical drawbacks.
    1) The need to regularly replace, track, exchange data with these 4000+ interceptors.
    The less weight in the device, the greater% of this weight is for fuel, which need to correct the orbit and in which case accelerate the object to the target (to destroy it). That is, for a long-lived device, we are forced to make a larger supply of fuel, a longer resource for solar panels, duplication of a number of critical systems (after all, we are talking about a military satellite). The fact that they will make the decision as deshmannoe as possible does not mean that they will circumvent these factors. A military long-term and accurate object will, by definition, be difficult and technologically expensive, not to mention the fact that an array of such devices with explosives on board (the option with kinetic interception will require even more fuel and a more powerful engine = more mass) creates the risks of a cascading emergency situation, when an explosion / collision of one device can create significant hemorrhoids internationally.
    In general: expensive, constantly expensive, a lot of control, the security of the system, given the price and mass solutions, will not be sufficient.
    2) In the Doomsday War, a lot of bad events will happen, such as atmospheric nuclear explosions, for example, the operation of electronic warfare to its fullest is the same. All this can coolly spoil the cards of the same type of satellite constellation, which is going along the path of the cheapest and most massive solution. Up to the failure of its part or reduction of the performance characteristics of interception products.
    3) A modern missile with an hcp is almost a piece by product in terms of bells and whistles and technology concentration. In the case of the decision to set up thousands of such interceptors - one well-aimed solution to overcome these interceptors - and install it on a rocket - the whole group will have to be changed.
    4) Orbital platforms with lasers - I think this is utopia. These platforms will be either disposable, but at the same time heavy, high-standing and unreliable products with nuclear pumping, or even more huge monsters with exorbitant sizes of coolers and much less quantitative slaughter. The first solution will cause great bewilderment even among friends of the United States who have some junk in orbit, the second solution makes the object even less massive and technologically vulnerable - disabling these platforms before an attack will be incomparably cheaper economically than creating and launching them.

    However, I fully share the author’s fears about the military use of these technologies, but rather not on an ongoing basis, but in the period of preparation for a large-scale war.
  17. Podvodnik 11 February 2020 21: 40 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    [/ quote] After 2030, the deployment of the orbital group will begin, which will last about five years, as a result of which 4000-5000 interceptor satellites will appear in orbit. If the system is recognized to be operational, efficient and economically adequate, then its deployment will continue to 10000 or more interceptor satellites. [Quote]


    Ray Bradbury is resting. SOI bullshit on a bright moonless night.
    Someone is at odds with mathematics, physics, optics (can be listed ad infinitum). Tens of thousands of interceptors? Few ! Give me a milen or even two. How to transfer target designation to interceptors? Even if it is. It is necessary to know the place of targets (everyone!) And the place of interceptors (everyone!) With an accuracy of a dozen. And all this at relative speeds of about 10 km / s. And how to direct? Will drive precision work? And how many angular seconds are there? (ha!) And optics at such a distance which "spot" will produce? And how much energy do you need? A target tracking for the defeat (time to "heat") And the angular tracking speed? And the accuracy of the system of a single time on each of the millena (!) For the corresponding synchronization of actions? And all this under a hundred kilograms? Well, two hundred. Persuaded. Conclusion:
    This is for George Lucas. It turned out only for him.
    In general: a flag in hand and a drum on the neck.
    1. mark2 11 February 2020 23: 06 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Yes, of course this is all complete nonsense.
  18. iouris 11 February 2020 22: 21 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    (There has never been such a thing, and now - again!) A familiar story. It was untwisted under Reagan. It all ended unintelligently (for one side).
  19. Maestro 12 February 2020 02: 09 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    In the 62nd, the Americans launched a high-altitude nuclear explosion ... which disabled half of all of their then satellites. So, if necessary, there are no problems of “breaking through" any missile defense created
  20. shinobi 12 February 2020 07: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    They'll blow it up. Again, the Soviet Union was the first to shoot the laser in orbit (the Yankees shuttle). They only develop their interceptors, while we are deploying them without a sane result. An article, another horror story. Also read in the 80s about SOI.Voz and now there. authors of this kind, that we don’t know anything about our own developments of this kind, and then uncomplicated philistine logic is triggered. If I don’t know, it doesn’t exist. That’s what the Americans do well, it’s a bluff.
    PS: The weak point of any missile defense with satellite guidance, orbital deployment of weapons, is that they are completely unprotected from electromagnetic strikes from electronic warfare systems of electronic warfare systems.
    1. ser56 12 February 2020 11: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: shinobi
      completely unprotected from strikes from the ground by electromagnetic weapons of electronic warfare systems.

      moreover, they can be destroyed in advance, before launch - it was extremely difficult to determine the effect on the satellite or it broke down ... request At the same time, SDI creates a false confidence in impunity - which is extremely dangerous ... belay
      1. shinobi 16 February 2020 01: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Absolutely true! hi
  21. Dzafdet 12 February 2020 08: 12 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Chef, it's all gone! The client leaves, the plaster is removed! Let it be deduced, but we will put a couple of dozen satellites with electronic warfare systems into different orbits, and at the "X" hour we will suppress their control systems. Cheap and cheerful. Well and to the heap we’ll make a series of nuclear explosions in orbit of warheads with EMP ... Let trillions be thrown into the wind, this is not the first time for them .... laughing tongue wassat
    1. shinobi 16 February 2020 01: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      So, it seems like there is already such an orbit already. Periodically performs maneuvers near the especially arrogant Yankee satellites and causes hysteria in the State Department.
  22. Viktor Sergeev 12 February 2020 08: 36 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The United States is in debt. Yes, they have a huge military budget, but their running costs are huge. they don’t have money to create a real circular missile defense. even all the US money for 10 years is not enough for missile defense. They understand: deploy the group for trillions of dollars, several years will pass and countermeasures will develop in incredible steps and the whole group will become scrap metal.
    The author, would you give up reading fiction and fairy tales about SOI.
    1. agond 12 February 2020 09: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Such an active discussion of space missile defense and there is more than one post about what range of detection of warheads is now and what is expected by 2030, I dare to assume that if the warheads are out of the shadow of the Earth, then they are illuminated by the Sun and should be clearly visible against a black sky, and also on the influence of the relative speed of satellites and warheads between themselves on the possibility of detecting the latter, here not the linear velocity, but the angular velocity is of great importance, the smaller it is, the longer it takes to detect., and if the distance is pain s the angular velocities are always low, so the detection range is critical.
      1. Andrey.AN 12 February 2020 10: 58 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        the difference in speed, without angular and in one direction, between space and ballistic - hypersound.
  23. Cresta999 12 February 2020 09: 08 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    As soon as the Americans launch interceptors into space, all the rest will withdraw warheads there. So this topic is eternal. Like a dispute between shell and armor. But what will American citizens with a finely organized psyche feel like sleeping when they know that satellites with bundles of warheads hang over their heads 24 hours a day?
    1. Shopping Mall 12 February 2020 12: 45 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Cresta999
      As soon as the Americans launch interceptors into space, all the rest will withdraw warheads there. So this topic is eternal. Like a dispute between shell and armor. But what will American citizens with a finely organized psyche feel like sleeping when they know that satellites with bundles of warheads hang over their heads 24 hours a day?


      Interceptors are non-nuclear. And if nuclear warheads hang in orbit, then nuclear war will become practical. Everything there is much more complicated and interesting, more on this later there will be material.
      1. Cresta999 12 February 2020 14: 31 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Warheads can also be non-nuclear. You can generally kinetic. If you give a good acceleration - a very tangible effect will be. As soon as a weapon is brought out into space (whether it is nuclear or not), a human fantasy (space) immediately stuffs it with all sorts of nishtyaks. So it’s better not to start. I think the Americans understand this.
      2. author-words 14 February 2020 10: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The United States is outside the framework of international law, and Russia is also on issues of strategic nuclear forces. Global conflict was held back not by agreements, but by parity of forces. To achieve it, they will also withdraw the nuclear warhead into space. You can’t even write about pieces of paper
  24. EvilLion 12 February 2020 10: 10 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    The author is aware that the crook and thief Iloshka Mask takes in reality twice as much as what is written on his website, and so far he has not even been able to carry out a manned launch, although his office exists longer than it took from the end of the Second World War to the flight of Gagarin .
    1. ser56 12 February 2020 11: 36 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: EvilLion
      he couldn’t even carry out a manned launch

      and let him breed Americans further, destroying their space industry for the future ... hi
    2. Shopping Mall 12 February 2020 12: 43 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: EvilLion
      The author is aware that the crook and thief Iloshka Mask takes in reality twice as much as what is written on his website, and so far he has not even been able to carry out a manned launch, although his office exists longer than it took from the end of the Second World War to the flight of Gagarin .


      Then it was necessary to run at any cost, without regard to security, the risk was great. And the whole country worked for it. And now the most stringent safety requirements and a bunch of tests.
      1. author-words 14 February 2020 10: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You are wrong here. Technologies are developing in parallel both in terms of standards and in terms of speed, quality, cost, development efficiency. Here, economic factors, not technological ones, influence time.
  25. ser56 12 February 2020 11: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    the author simply advertises COM, without considering that countering it is noticeably easier ... request
    for example, “What can be the challenges of orbital platforms with laser weapons, and what threat can they pose?” you can answer - no - next to it you can place a satellite bomb that will destroy this platform on command or automatically when it is activated ... request
    1. Shopping Mall 12 February 2020 12: 42 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: ser56
      the author simply advertises COM, without considering that countering it is noticeably easier ... request
      for example, “What can be the challenges of orbital platforms with laser weapons, and what threat can they pose?” you can answer - no - next to it you can place a satellite bomb that will destroy this platform on command or automatically when it is activated ... request


      The question here is who makes the first move. If we destroy the platform in space proactively, then we are the aggressor, and this is no longer a defense as such. And if the enemy decided to strike first, then the platform itself will destroy such a satellite.
      1. ser56 12 February 2020 12: 56 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        then the platform itself will destroy such a satellite.

        then this platform will become a death star in complexity ... request
        Quote: AVM
        If you destroy the platform in space proactively, then we are the aggressor

        1) destroyed or broken?
        2) The creation of such platforms is already a provocation of the level of casus belli ... request
        1. Shopping Mall 12 February 2020 13: 02 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: ser56
          Quote: AVM
          then the platform itself will destroy such a satellite.

          then this platform will become a death star in complexity ... request


          To some extent it is) Therefore, he wrote that this is the most complex product possible. Only any exotic is more complicated - neutron weapons, etc.

          Quote: ser56
          Quote: AVM
          If you destroy the platform in space proactively, then we are the aggressor

          1) destroyed or broken?


          There are options here:
          - How many platforms will there be? All at once cannot "break".
          - Will they be manned or not?

          Quote: ser56

          2) The creation of such platforms is already a provocation of the level of casus belli ... request


          The reason is that it may be the reason, but let's say such a platform appeared, do you think the leadership of our country will start a war because of this?

          In general, the article from the series "The Sunset of the Nuclear Triad" is not the last, two more are planned. In them, we consider possible ways of counteracting a sudden disarming strike and missile defense.
          1. Knell wardenheart 12 February 2020 15: 09 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            I don’t think that in the third world it will be really critical “who is the aggressor” and who is not .. the events of recent years demonstrate quite well how even undeniable and unshakable historical events can undergo skillful transformation even in a short period of time, and repeatedly repeated lies become endless close to the truth in the minds of the majority.
            There is definitely a risk of certain events that will have to move most of humanity (about 70%) in terms of the sum of indicators (population, industrial potential, possession of resources and control over communications) to come to some uniformity of management / centralization of activity. It could be described as a “war for the unification of mankind” - and if it takes place (I believe even less in peaceful unification), the winner will write the story as he wants, no matter who started it and at what cost. I’m all this to the fact that higher bets create more rigidity of the game, and the value of the first move increases ..
          2. ser56 12 February 2020 17: 13 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: AVM
            neutron weapons, etc.

            it's just relatively not difficult ....
            Quote: AVM
            There are options here:
            - How many platforms will there be? All at once cannot "break".
            - Will they be manned or not?

            you can’t put them into high orbits with the crew because of the exposure, so you will need a lot, given the reflection of the mass launch and rotation ... therefore, there will not be enough money ... bully and unmanned ones will be so complex that it’s not realistic ...
            Quote: AVM
            but suppose such a platform appeared, do you think the leadership of our country will start a war because of this?

            1) is there a choice? their deployment fights off our nuclear deterrence weapons ... request
            2) I am generally convinced that it is necessary to throw this sussing and put into service the YaBCh at 27-50Mt and actively promote their combat capabilities in foreign media - the layman must be forced to revive the anti-war movement ... hi
            Quote: AVM
            In general, the article from the series "The Sunset of the Nuclear Triad" is not the last, two more are planned. In them, we consider possible ways of counteracting a sudden disarming strike and missile defense.

            read ... hi
  26. Operator 12 February 2020 13: 21 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The assessment of the US missile defense prospects set forth in the article is incorrect for a simple reason - the only part of the flight path of intercontinental ballistic missiles and warheads suitable for intercepting them is the anti-aircraft missile system (from the moment of launch to the separation of the BB from the breeding stage).

    Prospective guided warheads in space and in the terminal portion of the trajectory are practically not intercepted because of their stealth coating from a metamaterial with a negative angle of reflection of electromagnetic waves and the implementation of anti-aircraft maneuver after entering the atmosphere (with a disposable overload of at least an available anti-missile overload).

    Therefore, no "star pebbles", transatmospheric interceptors and atmospheric missiles that require external radar and on-board optoelectronic guidance for their guidance will not be able to intercept promising UBBs.

    The only effective means of interception are space-based megawatt lasers, designed to destroy the fuel tanks of launching ICBMs and SLBMs during the period they pass the ATU, when the missile body is practically unprotected from external energy influences. Based on the characteristics of the propagation of a high-power laser beam in dense layers of the atmosphere (its collapse under the action of self-focusing), the boundary of laser interception should be located at least 40 km above the Earth's surface.

    Countermeasures against laser interception include rotating a ballistic missile around its longitudinal axis (to smear a laser spot along the body), flying a rocket in a spiral with a variable pitch (to complicate the laser’s aiming at the calculated meeting point) and reducing the completion height to 40 km (due to increase engine thrust and ICBM design strength to the level of anti-missile).

    These measures can be applied together, while their total cost will be an order of magnitude less than the cost of creating any space missile defense system.

    Separately, it is necessary to mention an even cheaper measure to counter missile defense space platforms of the type equipped with megawatt lasers - their small number due to the mass of several tens of tons and the insecurity of the controlled mirrors that reflect the laser beam onto a moving target makes it possible in peacetime to place a small satellite near each platform - a tens of kilogram interceptor, which, upon command from the Earth, will break a mirror even before the ICBM rises to a height of 40 km. The cost of a satellite interceptor will be three orders of magnitude less cost of a laser space platform.

    So the US missile defense has no chance of a word at all bully
    1. Shopping Mall 12 February 2020 14: 24 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      Prospective controlled BBs in space and in the terminal portion of the trajectory are practically not intercepted because of their stealth coating from a metamaterial with a negative angle of reflection of electromagnetic waves


      Metamaterials still have a negative reflection angle in very narrow ranges of electromagnetic waves. When will they be created, and whether universal solutions will be created in general, is unknown. It is possible that this is even theoretically impossible, since those layers of metamaterials that distort millimeter-wave radio waves perfectly reflect centimeter and optical waves and vice versa.

      Therefore, hyperspectral sensors and radars with different wavelengths will be able to see them, especially spatially separated (a view from different points).

      Quote: Operator
      and performing anti-aircraft maneuver after entering the atmosphere (with a disposable overload of at least a disposable overload of anti-ballistic missiles).


      Which ones? It is unlikely that we can know here exactly what overloads the BB can implement, and which interceptor, this is secret data. But the developers of missile defense may well be aware, for example, by telemetry testing our units. And the development of interceptors is most likely taking into account these requirements.


      Quote: Operator
      The only effective means of interception are space-based megawatt lasers, designed to destroy the fuel tanks of launching ICBMs and SLBMs during the period they pass the ATU, when the missile body is practically unprotected from external energy influences. Based on the characteristics of the propagation of a high-power laser beam in dense layers of the atmosphere (its collapse under the action of self-focusing), the boundary of laser interception should be located at least 40 km above the Earth's surface.


      Yes, there is no self-focusing effect. This is a cyclic process of self-focusing, self-focusing.

      Quote: Operator
      Countermeasures against laser interception are the rotation of a ballistic missile around its longitudinal axis (to smear a laser spot along the body)


      It will help, but not much.

      Quote: Operator
      rocket flight in a spiral with a variable pitch (to complicate laser guidance at the calculated meeting point) and to reduce the completion height of the ATU to 40 km (due to an increase in engine thrust and ICBM design strength to the level of anti-ballistic missiles).


      The first contradicts the second. Speed ​​acceleration + spiral movement = huge overloads. And since there is practically no self-focusing effect, they will work immediately from the moment of detection.

      Although a short active site alone is good. Both against the laser, and against the anti-missiles working "after".

      Quote: Operator
      Separately, it is necessary to mention an even cheaper measure to counter missile defense space platforms of the type equipped with megawatt lasers - their small number due to the mass of several tens of tons and the insecurity of the controlled mirrors that reflect the laser beam onto a moving target makes it possible in peacetime to place a small satellite near each platform - a tens of kilogram interceptor, which, upon command from the Earth, will break a mirror even before the ICBM rises to a height of 40 km. The cost of a satellite interceptor will be three orders of magnitude less cost of a laser space platform.


      Why doesn't the platform destroy him first since they are attacking?

      Quote: Operator
      So the US missile defense has no chance of a word at all bully

      There is no full-fledged nuclear arsenal. But in the case of their first strike, everything changes.
      1. Operator 12 February 2020 15: 03 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        You described the prospects of missile defense, I - the prospects of metamaterials. Multi-angle guidance is not suitable for kinetic interceptors approaching the BB at the “last mile” only on the basis of data from their onboard GOS.

        The monoblock design of the warhead by default has a greater disposable overload than the assembly of warheads and anti-missile turbofan engines.

        In the process of self-focusing / self-focusing, the laser beam intensively loses energy and instead of megawatts, kilowatts are obtained.

        If more than one nanosatellite interceptor is located near the space laser platform, an attempt to destroy the first of them will automatically lead to the destruction of the platform’s mirror by the second.

        Against the counter-magnetic ballistic missile system, a reciprocal anti-ballistic missile system is used.
    2. ser56 12 February 2020 17: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Operator
      the period of passage of the AUT, when the missile body is practically unprotected from external energy influences

      Something is preventing smoke from starting areas in the atmospheric area, which reduces the ability to aim?
      Quote: Operator
      their stealth coatings from a metamaterial with a negative angle of reflection

      fiction, especially considering the weight ... it’s easier to really do a refractory coating and rotation ....
      .
      Quote: Operator
      self-focusing collapse)

      fantasy... crying
      1. Operator 12 February 2020 17: 42 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Why are you smoking if the rocket itself, when flying at a speed of more than 5 M in dense layers of the atmosphere (up to an altitude of 40 km), creates a cocoon from itself around it that protects from the laser better than any smoke?

        And above 40 km, separation from the UBB rocket (small-sized high-speed maneuvering targets with ablation coating) can already take place.
  27. Roman070280 12 February 2020 14: 58 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The situation with Roscosmos can be compared with the situation with the Russian Navy. There is technology, there is experience, but at the same time complete confusion and reeling regarding general direction of development, misunderstanding of goals and objectives, facing the space industry.


    I wondered straight .. and who from Roskosmos may be to blame for this ..
  28. SID
    SID 12 February 2020 15: 21 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    The figures given for the cost of launching a payload on different carriers cannot be the basis for conclusions about the economic possibilities of the United States in terms of the number of launches and the output load. If only because the figures given are the commercial value in the current launch market. How can new a rocket made in the USA, where the cost of labor is much higher than in Russia, to be at the level or cheaper than the proton launched for decades Only one thing is dumping on the launch market, with the goal of strangling the industry in Russia. And the real price for the same Falcons can be many times higher.
    1. PavelT 16 February 2020 00: 44 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      the real price for the same Falcons can be many times higher.

      Not 40-50%, but straight repeatedly? Really?
      We continue to believe in the endless dumping of Mask and his conspiracy with the State Department against Roskosmos and the patriotic patriot Rogozin?
      I’m not going to prove what it is to throw money down the drain (because the space industry in Russia is already bending), no one in the USA needs it (neither the State Department, nor the president, nor NASA) and that Musk cannot dump for so long (because it’s unprofitable " Tesla "has been hanging on the neck for about 5 years now and is saving itself from the" Spa-X "precisely with money).
      I will come from the other side: Is Rogozin such a patriot? He rather dropped the space industry down. Look what he was doing in the USA in 2005, whom and for what he smeared with money for the Rodina party:
      https://efile.fara.gov/docs/5435-Exhibit-AB-20050922-2.pdf - бланк о регистрации в министерстве юстиции США договора (на 175000 $) между представителем интересов партии "Родина" и американской фирмой, которая готовилась принимать в США делегацию партии в октябре 2005 ... Даже позицию по Украине сменил: http://origin.ruskline.ru/monitoring_smi/2005/01/12/strana_kotoruyu_predala_rodina/ И потом это подмазывание в США продолжалось: https://gtmarket.ru/news/state/2009/03/20/1947
      1. Salty 16 February 2020 00: 50 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Man, instead of discussing specific issues, you sculpt a nonsense politot. Yes, and 15 years ago. This is not constructive, at least.
      2. SID
        SID 17 February 2020 11: 55 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        The cost of launch for the government and the US military is 1,5 times higher. Keep in mind that even this price does not reflect the total cost, because if you are able to imagine the entire process of developing and manufacturing ILV in the USA - from OCD to the completion of the tests, then that the military and the US government buy launches paying off all the costs along the entire scientific and technological chain - you don’t even have to say ...

        Dumping for a state that prints world currency uncontrollably is a sweet deal. If not for this opportunity - to fill in with money - there would be no talk at all about the scientific and technological progress of the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

        And where did you get Ragozin here ...? You have some kind of subconditioning with cause and effect relationships.

        Calm down, take a break, and do not write anymore what fell to mind.
        1. PavelT 19 February 2020 01: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I wrote about one and a half times (40-50%). Old guys with the ULA blat (United Launch Alliance = Lockheed Martin + Boeing - aren't these the corporations that are closer to the US military-industrial complex?), They were ready to “milk” the US budget for decades ($ 0.5 billion per launch) - just as you thought: "they will still print". They couldn’t think of something new - why, when, when does money flow in a stable river? But their business pushed Musk with their rates.

          Alas, this does not shine for us. Roscosmos will not allow any private competitors, it will take all financial flows for itself. That is the point.
          We even came up with a better business idea: to develop missiles for 5-10-15 years and after that ... close the project without really making a rocket, since it’s expensive, or no longer needed, or you need to develop a new rocket. Examples: Angara, which has been suffering from 1995 for 110-160 billion rubles, didn’t really detail, the production was transferred from Moscow to Omsk (they still can’t fix it there), how much the transfer cost didn’t tell us, and the plant area in Moscow sold under real estate. They designed the universal Rus-M rocket, spent 1.63 billion rubles, decided not to do it (very convenient!), Kazakhstan used Kazakhstan’s brains for 10 years with the Baiterek / Sunkar rocket (the price rose from $ 223 million to $ 1,64 billion) - they scored it too, for some reason they rewrote the project in the Russian Phoenix, it is also Irtysh (for 2016 costs were estimated at $ 500 million, and another $ 245 million for the modernization of ground infrastructure at Baikonur), then for simplicity they renamed it Soyuz-5 (for those who are not confused yet!), In 2018 they allocated another 61,2 billion rubles for testing (although this is 70-80% old Soviet I rocket "Zenith") - but it will not fly before 2024 and to it still wants to develop a "Soyuz-6" (more money) and an option for "Sea Launch" (which was left without missiles) - money hoping to shake off with S7. But that's not all! There is still the Yenisei heavyweight, which they cannot agree on, they agree - this project will take the money from Angara and Soyuz-5 (it cannot cost less than 100 billion rubles), they won’t be in time by 2029 and will close this “Yenisei” as unnecessary / expensive too (already it was with N-1 and “Energy”, but they like to step on the same rake and also steal money at the same time). The clown renamed the Federation ship one into the Eagle, but so far there is nothing besides the layout - it is not even clear where they will fly: to the ISS or to the Moon (with landing or only to the American station in orbit of the Moon)? What can you object to this? Where is the luck on the background of this confusion and reeling at the state expense?

          And I sewed Rogozin that his orientation on the ISS and the lunar program of the United States (everyone was waiting for what else the Americans deign to ask Roskosmos for money) and brought Roscosmos to where it now hangs: they are waiting for the lunar program The United States will order them (and they will simply throw them in front of the eyes of the whole world!), They have no ideas of their own, the spaceport has not been completed, you can’t work on the ISS for dollars ... You didn’t have to look at the USA, you need to think with your own head.
          1. SID
            SID 19 February 2020 11: 25 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Listen, one more time ...

            Juggling cost in rubles or dollars, as the main criterion in assessing the CRC, is idiocy (to a certain extent). Sorry, of course, for harshness. You talk from the platform of an 8-meter kitchenette, measure everything in rubles.

            Maask! Musk created his rockets on the ni-binistic scientific and experimental groundwork of the 70's, 80's ... Does anyone take this into account the cost of rockets? And who takes into account in the proportions of value the fact that, at the exchange rate, rubles are greatly underestimated, and the dollar is greatly overestimated? One can buy much less for a ruble than they could, and a lot more can be bought for a dollar than it should ... A ruble is actually produced oil, gas, metals, wheat, fertilizers produced, and products for export. The dollar is paper.

            Rogozin ... This is a political figure with a high degree of ignorance regarding his position. There are ideas, but there is no understanding what the state generally needs from outer space. However, for the time being there is no understanding of “why do we need space,” the authorities and those who sat down on the industry as a feeding trough — figures like Rogozin — must think up something so that the industry does not stall, there must be “movement” at least somewhere.
            1. PavelT 21 February 2020 01: 13 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I completely agree with your words on Rogozin. And by the fact that there is no understanding "why do we need space." But: even in such a situation, one could find and put at the head of a less chaotic person, so as not to see such clownish behavior in this position! After all, this is the country's prestige too.
              1. SID
                SID 21 February 2020 12: 04 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Since the mid-70s, I’ll tell you a secret, a purposeful process of decomposition of the Soviet design culture has begun. In the 90s, the process was aggressively repressive. Today, the design culture in Russia is absent “as a class”, and in design institutes and institutions the administrative layer aggressively provides and supports this position.
  29. chistyakov.trofim 12 February 2020 15: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Specialty of the author and work experience in the specialty, please inform!
    1. agond 12 February 2020 17: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There is an obvious contradiction here: why should Americans put up platforms for star wars in geostationary orbits, when it is possible to create an inevitable threat from the Baltic states with simple short- and medium-range missiles, literally inside the country.
      1. Shopping Mall 12 February 2020 22: 17 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: agond
        There is an obvious contradiction here: why should Americans put up platforms for star wars in geostationary orbits, when it is possible to create an inevitable threat from the Baltic states with simple short- and medium-range missiles, literally inside the country.


        It is unlikely that this will be a geostationary station. Rather, the orbits are from 500 to 2000 km.

        And these are two sides of the same coin. A sudden disarming strike is applied first. https://topwar.ru/166706-zakat-jadernoj-triady-oruzhie-ssha-dlja-nanesenija-obezglavlivajuschego-udara.html
        And that which is not destroyed by the first blow, achieves missile defense.

        If the missile defense is threatened with 1000 or more warheads, then to finish off what remains after the first strike, for example, 100-300 warheads, such a missile defense system can with multiple overlap.
        1. SID
          SID 17 February 2020 12: 05 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Shaved under what is written in the article: 800 - 1000 km
  30. vowanof 12 February 2020 18: 17 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Haha write such large texts, not mastered, bukaf very much
  31. Zusul 12 February 2020 22: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    While we are rinsing each other's brains with orbital lasers, Umbrella Corporation has already begun full-scale tests of the prototype t-virus :)
  32. CBR600 13 February 2020 09: 05 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    I absolutely agree with KSA ....
    Quote: KCA
    What is held in the "Dead Hand"?

    What kind of missile defense, what kind of SOI ... Ours have long mined the entire Tan back in the 60s. Therefore, we are not patrolling their coast now. No reason bully
  33. Kirill_Z 13 February 2020 13: 32 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Diamond stones and similar orbital systems are the biggest threat to ballistic missiles. It is the threat of their deployment that caused the creation of new strategic weapons systems operating "below space", such as Vanguard, Poseidon and Petrel.
  34. Mercenary 13 February 2020 17: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And what about missile defense missiles can dive? A lot of "Poseidons" to the shores and even though the tanks are launched into orbit. Hana will come to everyone!
  35. Vik ganz 13 February 2020 22: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The author wrote a custom article. Ordered unclear by whom. (State Department?)
    I am a small specialist in military affairs, but the logic to date shows that all developed military systems, such as the T-14 tank, all Poseidons and Vanguards, are five or more times cheaper than American developments. US military spending is many times higher than Russian military spending, but the whole world sees how things are in this field. Russia does not lose the United States at all, but already wins in many ways, and the whole world sees this.
    Further - the author hit in placing a huge number of satellites in orbit. I remember the same problem was successfully solved in relation to large
    "swarm" of drones - just quite easy. I think you need to make non-trivial decisions - “perpendicular”, as it was before.
    1. PavelT 19 February 2020 02: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I did not believe in the old version of this American SOI-PRO (but I must admit that the Americans coolly soldered the nearby Gorbachev and he jerked off with a disruption and a fine-tuned interception of a target missile with a radio beacon).
      I do not believe in this new expensive toy.
      1. Anti-missiles are easily extinguished by oncoming nuclear strikes at their locations (by their radars) - one warhead per radar. Only mobile missiles and radars on US Navy ships are dangerous because of their mobility and ubiquity. But they can be circumvented / satiated with false goals (inflatable layouts on the same "bus").
      2. These 15 kg space interceptors in wild quantities are needed for different orbits, for different phases of the orbits (if they are still on the back of the ball at the time of the apogee of the warheads of our ICBMs, how damn they will stop them ???). Directions are different: to intercept ICBMs from the Kozelsky-Kirovsky region flying through the north pole to Alaska, hundreds of interceptors in phases must be distributed in phases in one orbit, to intercept ICBMs from the same area, but hundreds more interceptors to fly through the north pole to Florida orbits. Total thousands waiting there ... for 10-20, how many more years? And then there is the Orenburg region, there are Far Eastern basing areas for ICBMs, you can place new ICBMs in the Polar Urals, Novaya Zemlya, you can launch missiles east or west, or even through the south pole ... And missiles from submarines are generally launched according to other principles. In general, the dough cut endless and useless ...
      3. Lasers flying in space and destroying ICBMs on an active site, it’s scary (scary), but one such thing will cost much more than even the largest ICBM with 10 warheads. But you can protect yourself from this by covering with a mirror-like color of the rocket body and spraying gas / dust (blocking radiation) from the head of the rocket when irradiated. Are these lasers for 10-20? years in orbit will deteriorate themselves, and they can also be “helped” to deteriorate by scattering hundreds of small tungsten balls imperceptibly in advance in the oncoming / intersecting orbit (0.5 cm each - no radar will detect them, there will be no evidence). And most importantly: this miracle, the laser should also be above the ICBM-based areas at the time of launch! If the war begins when this miraculous laser on the other side of the ball - alas, the super laser will be late for this last war ...
      1. Shopping Mall 19 February 2020 10: 58 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: PavelT
        I did not believe in the old version of this American SOI-PRO (but I must admit that the Americans coolly soldered the nearby Gorbachev and he jerked off with a disruption and a fine-tuned interception of a target missile with a radio beacon).
        I do not believe in this new expensive toy.
        1. Anti-missiles are easily extinguished by oncoming nuclear strikes at their locations (by their radars) - one warhead per radar. Only mobile missiles and radars on US Navy ships are dangerous because of their mobility and ubiquity. But they can be circumvented / satiated with false goals (inflatable layouts on the same "bus").


        You still have to fly to the radar. If its range is 4000-6000 km, then an explosion at this distance will not harm her. To separate false targets just need lasers. And you need to understand that the ability to select targets will grow due to mixing data from different types of sensors - radar in cm, dm, m bands, IR, UV, lidar, maybe terahertz radiation ..

        Quote: PavelT
        2. These 15 kg space interceptors in wild quantities are needed for different orbits, for different phases of the orbits (if they are still on the back of the ball at the time of the apogee of the warheads of our ICBMs, how damn they will stop them ???). Directions are different: to intercept ICBMs from the Kozelsky-Kirovsky region flying through the north pole to Alaska, hundreds of interceptors in phases must be distributed in phases in one orbit, to intercept ICBMs from the same area, but hundreds more interceptors to fly through the north pole to Florida orbits. Total thousands waiting there ... for 10-20, how many more years? And then there is the Orenburg region, there are Far Eastern basing areas for ICBMs, you can place new ICBMs in the Polar Urals, Novaya Zemlya, you can launch missiles east or west, or even through the south pole ... And missiles from submarines are generally launched according to other principles. In general, the dough cut endless and useless ...


        So there will be thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands. Actually, the article is about this. If a private company is planning to throw 4000-12000 satellites into orbit, then what are the possibilities of the state? 10000-40000 satellites? JLL is an extremely expensive thing. It is likely that interceptor satellites will be able to rivet "in bulk" as ATGMs.

        Quote: PavelT
        3. Lasers flying in space and destroying ICBMs on an active site, yes, it’s scary (scary), but one such thing will cost much more than even the largest ICBM with 10 warheads. But you can protect yourself from this by covering with a mirror-like color of the rocket body and spraying gas / dust (blocking radiation) from the head of the rocket when irradiated.

        Are these lasers for 10-20? years in orbit will deteriorate themselves, and they can also be “helped” to deteriorate by scattering hundreds of small tungsten balls imperceptibly in advance in the oncoming / intersecting orbit (0.5 cm each - no radar will detect them, there will be no evidence).


        From the article:
        And yes, a bucket of nuts will not help destroy satellite orbiting satellites, just as foil or silverfish will not protect against laser weapons.
        .
        Neither the mirror coating from the laser helps (it burns out in a split second), nor the balls in orbit (too much space, the network was full of calculations of how many tons - hundreds or thousands of tons would need to be put into orbit to destroy satellite constellations).

        Quote: PavelT
        And most importantly: this miracle the laser should also be above the ICBM-based areas at the time of launch! If the war begins when this miraculous laser on the other side of the ball - alas, the super laser will be late for this last war ...


        If we talk about the attack, then yes - we have the initiative, and if they attack first, which is actually the whole series of articles, then they will choose the time when the platforms will be in optimal position. And they may well be mobile and change their orbits like the X-37.
  36. PavelT 16 February 2020 00: 29 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: lucul
    Secondly, ours doesn’t just work out hypersound - perhaps soon all nuclear weapons will be transferred to it.

    “Soon” and “everything” is a clear fantasy ...
    If soon we consider not 20 years (how do we know what you mean “soon”?), But 10 years or less, then the task of translating all strategic nuclear forces into hypersound is too complicated and costly for the Russian defense:
    To transfer 320 strategic missile forces of the Strategic Missile Forces + 150 strategic missiles on submarines to convert to hypersonic is not just 470 new hypersonic missiles to do (although it will take at least 10 years).
    First, there are no hypersonic options for submarines yet.
    Secondly, the tested hypersonic Avangard carries only three warheads, and out of 320 missiles, 46 missiles are the Voivode R-36M2 with 10 warheads and ~ 150 RS-24 Yars, 4 warheads each — how many additional Avangards are needed and make mines for them in order to replace by equal the number of warheads delivered ...

    Well, as for the "everything" - no one will change the new "Yars" to hypersonic until the "Yars" serve their warranty period. They are quite new, not for that they were developed in order to disassemble them in 10 years.

    And in general: Are you aware that hypersonic delivery vehicles take longer to reach targets than conventional ballistic missiles? Anyone who foolishly translates the strategic nuclear forces into "hypersound" may be surprised to find that his retaliatory strike is too slow.
  37. PavelT 16 February 2020 00: 32 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Kirill_Z
    operating "below space",

    And therefore flying slower than conventional ballistic missiles. So in a modern war, you can fly to a goal that is no longer (started) and to the moment when the war has already ended ...
  38. The comment was deleted.
  39. Sckepsis 19 February 2020 17: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There is an assumption that the problem of thousands of interceptor satellites is solved by the explosion in orbit of one charge of the megaton class.
  40. nikolai chupin 19 February 2020 21: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    2 Poseidon and all about jo ..... u.
  41. PavelT 21 February 2020 01: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: AVM
    You still have to fly to the radar. If its range is 4000-6000 km, then an explosion at this distance will not harm her.

    Well, you give ... How could this be so strange to understand ???!
    I just didn’t chew the obvious: of course, I was referring to a separate warhead (separate ICBM / cruise missile with a nuclear warhead) launched precisely on this radar OR at the base of the missile defense with a small (about 3-6 minutes) advance in front of the bulk of flying ICBMs to normal strategic goals. In order to knock out anti-missiles on their take-off, and the radar, at the moment when he spotted his targets and began to give anti-missiles to them.
    It’s not necessary to hit the target directly. But there is no question of thousands of kilometers there either. The explosion range of a warhead is highly dependent on its power: for physical damage to the radar and for a 1Mt warhead, it can talk about 2-5 km from the target (the electromagnetic pulse will work well from 20-30 km, but who knows what they have there electronic protection systems / redundant power and control circuits). For the missile defense area and 1Mt, it was better to reach 0.5-1.5 km in order to damage the shafts / wings of the shafts for the missiles that were not yet issued.
  42. Petrik66 April 27 2020 10: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Managers, general designers, etc. proved their inefficiency. If this happens in a commercial structure, then the owners hire a crisis manager and he, having received the authority, must make a decision 1. or having driven all the “managers” who brought the company to such a result to that mother, in spite of the “merit”, relatives of the negotiations that I’m Korolev himself saw. , then, new people are appointed who have confirmed their competence and have their own new plan for withdrawing from the pit in which everyone is located. 2. Or disperse this whole bench. Since the industry is too important, it is impossible to let “accountants” to it, they’ll ruin it, but the manager in the full sense of this owl should be. And then they have MASK, and we have Rogozin.
  43. Cyril G ... April 28 2020 21: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Shaw again? Are there any donkeys who believe in another ride on the ears?